[atari 2600]

a) i've already stated that whether there is a big crunch or not pending is debatable. certainly infinity is at play in this universe, so perhaps the energy from the initial big bang will carry on things forever. i happen to feel that it's a cycle like all other things, so i believe there will be a big crunch, and then after that, probably another big bang and the cycle just repeats itself forever.

b) to dispute the fact that there is an unconscious is sophomoric. rather than tell you why i like jung more than freud, i'll just (perhaps annoyingly) Q&A myself:
what do you think psychology and comparative religion are? they are fields of research and study, and are (largely) scientific disciplines.

z) everyone has an unconscious that knows everything. those who pursue the arts seem to have more of a connection to it than others.
it's sort of funny to read mockery by those that offer no ideas of their own.
As in Plato, Socrates' dictum of "Know Thyself!" should be everyone's imperative.
The imperative of my mockingbirds seems to go a little something like:
KILL THE WISE ONE!
KILL THE WISE ONE!

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

BEFORE. BEFORE. BEFORE.

this board sometimes...

unfortunately, locating images of the singularity that caused the Big Bang would require a transdimensional lens.

I'll see if I can drag one up, and I'll get back to you on it.

however, in the meantime, Atari is right. time (as we know it) began the instant that particles exploded into this plane of existance.

although, I do disagree with the statement that it will end. as the fabric of space-time stretches like a balloon, temporal distortion is bound to occur (but will not cease).

[edit: I see your new post now atari, and that statement is fair enough (afterall, who REALLY knows?) personally, I hope that there is a Big Cruch, infinite expansion is too depressing.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

a) i've already stated that whether there is a big crunch or not pending is debatable and that i believe there will be one

b) to dispute the fact that there is an unconscious is sophomoric. rather than tell you why i like jung more than freud, i'll just (perhaps annoyingly) Q&A myself:
what do you think psychology and comparative religion are? they are sciences.

your logic has more holes han a swiss cheese.

nobody is disputing the occurrence of the big bang here. it's just that you alone claim to know what was BEFORE it. which is an outlandish claim. if you wanna believe that in private, fine, but once you post it in public it's open for business.

now i'm not disputing "the existence of the unconscious", whatever maybe your definition of it, just your lunatic claim that it knows everything! at which i must, again, laugh.

PROVE ME WHAT WAS "BEFORE" THE BIG BANG, AND PROVE ME YOUR UNCONSCIOUS KNOWS BETTER THAN PARADE ITS LUNACY ON THE INTERNET, OH PROPHET, AND I'LL BELIEVE YOU.

i'm not "yelling", i'm just putting it all in caps so you don't miss the point.

[m1rr0r dash]

my unconscious knows everything also... in truth we all share the same unconscious, a fact we delude ourselves from with the veil of maya... plato said so in his sock puppet dialogues and the cave shadow stories... so it must be true.

[atari 2600]

exactly, m1rr0r dash, the an individual's unconscious and the collective unconsious are obviously related but even moreso than most may think (if they do at all haha). in actuality, they are the same unconscious. not only in philosophy, but in life. it's just that human beings cannot ever truly fully grasp the contents.

glad to read your post too, floatingslowly. you seem to be the only one that gets that part.

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

time (as we know it) began the instant that particles exploded into this plane of existance.

i've decided to no longer give the mockingbirds any creedence or treat them to any further rebuttals. if you two (mirror and floating) ever want to pold along with me about the universe, i'm up for it most anytime to do so with you.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

nobody is diputing the occurrence of the big bang here.

I believe that he was responding to me dickering about the "Big Crunch"

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

PROVE ME WHAT WAS "BEFORE" THE BIG BANG

someday, I might. when / if I do, I'll be sure and thank you in my nobel acceptance speech.




dear gawd, Atari doesn't need my help here....you kids carry on!

[!@#$%!]

*snort*

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by m1rr0r dash

you just said the same thing i was saying... that certain types of knowledge (and not necessarily esoteric mysticism... something as simple as aesthetics or poetics) are NOT in the realm of science, AND science explicitly preculdes their validity.

science only precludes their validity when it comes to getting repeatable scientific results. the scientific method, when applied to shamanism, sceances, spirit writing, etc, has always shown them to be shams/cons/parlor tricks
science is a method of gathering information, not a cadre of old men out to demolish spirituality.

religion however,, IS a cadre of old men out to demolish freethought.

[Rob Instigator]

[quote=m1rr0r dash

paranormal inquiry will yield paranormal knowledge, psychoanalytic inquiry will yield psychoanalytic knowledge... that's all...[/quote]

paranormal inquiry YIELDS NOTHING!!!!! NOTHING AT ALL!

Duke university has had a department of paranormal studies for almost 60 years now. They have yet to YIELD ANYTHING AT ALLL!!!!!!! read about it.

[atari 2600]

I'm with you on that, Rob.

Like I wrote, m1rr0r dash, human beings cannot ever really fully grasp the unconscious contents.

Those that claim paranormal powers like "psychics" and "channelers" betray any credibility when they proffer knowledge that is essentially unknowable in the detail that they describe. They are quite foolish, and those that follow them are surely fools.

And this is the essential reason why many of these charlatans now go by the title of an "intuitive." It's an easier sell, since, you know, we all have the potential ability to be at least somewhat intuitive at times.

"Be still, and know that I am God." - Psalms 46:10

[Rob Instigator]

atari, I will admit being skeptic and a cynic at heart, but I do understand that shamanism/ritual/religion can be a path to enlightenment, and a path to metaphysical knowledge. I am down with that.
However, I see metaphysical knowledge as purely personal, which I think you have stated before, and therefore not valid to apply to the general state of humanity or the universe.

I personally do not agree with your take on the "unconscious" but I personally feel that WILL is an energy a force, and that human WILL by virtue of our huge and complex brains, probably can and does exert influence on the world around us.

The mind is holographic. the brain is set up holographically, in some sense. there have been studies done on lizard, where they take out their brains, and then put half of the brain back in, and the lizard can function at 90-98% capacity, even though it is missing half of it's physical brain. they ahve also emptied out lizard's skulls, BLENDED their brains in a blender, and poured the blended brain matter back into the lizards, and the lizards FUNCTIONED at around 35-40% capacity. Incredible!

if our brains/minds actually do function as holographic information storage systems then this would help explain the pervading sense that humans (and as far as we know, ONLY humans) feel of something greater than ourselves existing outside of and inside of ourselves.

it is all quite odd.

[Glice]

Link for that study please.

[m1rr0r dash]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

science only precludes their validity when it comes to getting repeatable scientific results. the scientific method, when applied to shamanism, sceances, spirit writing, etc, has always shown them to be shams/cons/parlor tricks
science is a method of gathering information, not a cadre of old men out to demolish spirituality.

religion however,, IS a cadre of old men out to demolish freethought.

i hope you understand that when i say science precludes the validity of aesthetic or poetics, i don't mean they are mutually exclusive... they are both valuable tools suited to different tasks and both have made valuable contributions to understanding the world.

but... repeatable results make for mediocre paintings... un-repeatable results make for iconic cultural images that resonate for generations...


....also, according to your definition (cadre of old men out to demolish freethought...), my thesis committee is a religion.

[m1rr0r dash]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

I'm with you on that, Rob.

Like I wrote, m1rr0r dash, human beings cannot ever really fully grasp the unconscious contents.

Those that claim paranormal powers like "psychics" and "channelers" betray any credibility when they proffer knowledge that is essentially unknowable in the detail that they do. They are quite foolish, and those that follow them are surely fools.

And this is the essential reason why many of these charlatans now go by the title of an "intuitive." It's an easier sell, since, you know, we all have the potential ability to be at least somewhat intuitive at times.

true, human beings cannot ever really fully grasp the unconscious contents. but poking around in the dark hardly requires psychic superpowers, just basic psychoanalysis...

of course !@#$%! will tell you they're essentially the same thing.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Glice

Link for that study please.

let me see what I can find. I read it in books, not online, so I will have to search for a paper.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by m1rr0r dash

i hope you understand that when i say science precludes the validity of aesthetic or poetics, i don't mean they are mutually exclusive... they are both valuable tools suited to different tasks and both have made valuable contributions to understanding the world.

but... repeatable results make for mediocre paintings... un-repeatable results make for iconic cultural images that resonate for generations...


....also, according to your definition (cadre of old men out to demolish freethought...), my thesis committee is a religion.

I agree; except to say science doesn't 'preclude' the validity; science deals with truth(-values), which isn't quite the same as qualitative assertions. 'Validity' is applied to the technique of scientific exploration, not the results qua results.

Re-reading Kant's 3rd lately - now there's a book that anyone talking about aesthetics should read...

[m1rr0r dash]

perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the scientific method denies the validity of aesthetic judgements.

..the only kant i've read is the prolegomena... but one of these days, i'll get deeper into it...

[atari 2600]

my advice...don't bother with kant. everything you need to know about kant can be found in will durant haha.

oh...he's going on about aesthetics in that one, Glice? that could be interesting i suppose.

treat us to a few good words from it...maybe?

[m1rr0r dash]

when i said i haven't read kant, i mean my unconscious already knows all of kant's writings and i have no need to go and purchase a stack of paper to find anything out about it... i just got the prolegomena cause i liked the cover...

[atari 2600]

ahahha

kant was just dreaming the impossible dream la-la-la...just like we all are on some level.