XBK Chat (unofficial archive)

Guest · Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:35 am Post subject:

wahl wahl wahl, now you're talking crap
I'm sorry, but that's my response

especially the inertia, I had a good laugh, thanks for that Laughing

do you look like some hippie dude with long hair? that would complete the picture...

don't mean to offend you, but you'll have to realise that you can't talk broader than physics if you don't know anything about it in the first place

wahl · Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England

Hi Kevin,
Seems like you missed the point totally, utterly and completely.
Check out Einstein and not just the theories.
Good book to read for you to take a look at, The Golden Section by Mario Livio (mathmetician).
Come back to me when you know what I am talking about.
Love
wahl

Guest · Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:09 pm Post subject:

Look here, you are that typical kind that looks down on science for the wrong reasons and from an inapropriate position.

You shouldn't mix paradigmas with science to begin with. Can I ask you what you studied? Did you ever conduct science yourself?

There is a strong philosphic stream of naturalism within the scientific community, without doubt. Yet, science is not about facts but about a degree of certainty based on empirical investigation. This means that through the method of science, not everything can be studied. Of course they only look at the electric impulse, what else is there to measure!? You can offer models that go beyong this empirical scope, but there is little reason to become arrogant with them, just because they can accomodate more. With just "logic" and some indirect proof, there is little to stand on. Don't convert your experiences into explanations - it's not the same.

I wonder what people like you expect from researchers? No really, if your kind would be publishing the papers on these subjects, lots of things would become clear ... oh yes, some difference in density here and there, or is it about the frequencies? oh I don't know, I'm just using lots of fancy terms. Do you have some kind of degree in name dropping? Is your ego getting a blow? It should. You still haven't given me your understanding of energy either, except that apparently EVERYTHING is energy! And yes, let's recommend some book on phi and arts.

We can have really usefull talks on these subjects, if only you realise your place. I like to think about these things too, but having received scientific training I can say I understand my position a lot better. Not only do you have to read a lot of scientific literature in all related subjects, when doing so you realise that the common view on "science" is only but media controlled crap.

Nobody demands you to offer a body-mind-kosmos model that explains those things which nobody can, but with the fuzzy talk you're giving me now,you willl only be impressing your grandmother (and that's true Smile

! )

Of course there is still the mind-body problem. There is plenty of discussion on different brain models etc. with different philosophies behind it. You just don't read the scientific literature on this, so what makes you thick?

"I think that the law of karma governs absolutely everything."

That's a great thought. What does that actually mean, concrete?

wahl · Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England

Hi Kevin,
Sorry to have rattled your cage. I really didn't mean to offend you with my lack of scientific knowledge. I studied classical music and I am as far from being a hippy dude as you could possibly imagine. Shocked

Anyway..........

Guest · Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:05 am Post subject:

wahl, it's great that you studied classical music. I must say music is my life. Whenever I can, I'm making music. i think if you check here there should be some mp3 of mine, little son and pillow (just a loop, not a song yet)

I think where you go wrong is underestimating the amount of information that is out there. The more you know, the more chance you have of getting closer to anyting that is the real deal. One great factor I haven't heard you mentioning is especially music - more exactly the harmonics. It's not enough to visualise everything as a form of the same substance - energy. What are the mechanisms that governs these? The old models of atoms were inspired by harmonics and visualised as such. The great thing is that it seems to work for a lot of things - if you look up Ray Tomes' Harmonics theory for example. Without doubt there can be energy forms out of reach for us to measure. But you must not forget that the actual meaning of energy is very abstract - not even "stuff" consisting of something. On the other hand, matter can be viewed as "frozen" energy. Yet, when you look at special relativity, energy differences can be cause just by switching from frame of reference ... there's no "stuff" or substance involved. That's where we get to the bottom: it's all math. The strange thing about math is that is really abstract in its pure form, yet you see that we can find math everywhere in nature (like your book on phi Wink

). Another way to look at it is to take the harmonics "model" instead of math -- music is math or math is music, one can choose. I prefer music Smile

A lot of social phenomena etc can be seen from this angle- it's about harmony and disharmony. That's what I also mean when I said we are all circles and bk's try to be a square: we have a core which is unchangeble. With some people on this planet, you'll never get along, and with others you have the feeling of having known them for ages after having spend just a day with them. We can certainly talk about frequencies and periods here in the spectrum of personality, where harmony and disharmony is inevitable.

Another important point you brought up is the mind-body problem. There is on the other hand the experience of soul consciousness which everyobody can learn. But we must be carefull with our conclusions: what does this actually really proof? The problem with the soul-body model is that again we are stuck in a black-white picture: AND IT DOESn'T WORK OUT! It never does with any subject. How is it possible that when I cut certain parts away from your brain, that your memories are gone? The soul-body model must overcome this problem by assuming that somehow, the soul must have access to certain parts of the brain in order to activate some of its own faculties - memory being one of them. That's a bit odd to believe. On the other hand, I wouldn't want reincarnation to be left out. But maybe we've got it all to simplisticly in our head - mainly due to reading too much murli in the past.
One of the first steps towards a solution to this funamental problem which has been around for centuries in philosphy etc., is complex systems theory and cybernetics.
You see, it appears that complex systems show unexpected behaviour, a phenomenon called EMERGENCE. A good example of this is a car: A car can drive, yet none of the components of which a car is made of can drive on its own. Driving is an emergent quality. Likewise, the brain is a complex system consisting of many components (which can be subdivided in even more subsystems) - the interaction of these is such that emergence occures -- consciousness would be one of them. Even though consciousness is not to be located in any part of the brain, it is occuring! Likewise, you can't locate "driving" in a car. This non-local aspect of emergence in a system is very important. It gives it a mystical and metaphysical appearance. I'm gonna try following a college course on these matters next semester, cause there has been lots of reseach on this.
When we are soul conscious, we are in fact not thinking and have indeed lost this very direct link with the body. Yet, in my view the black white representation is flawed and only partially true. There is a strong connection between the brain and consciousness - this is not explained up till now by anyone as far as I know. Somehow, the soul just "resides" in the brain somehwere ... that's almost like explaining nothing. I don't know how to connect the idea of emergence with something like reincarnation, yet I don't really care for the moment Smile

The path of real knowledge is really really long and not obvious. We can only do our best. I hope I didn't make to many typos, don't feel like re-reading my ramblings Laughing

Guest · Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:08 am Post subject:

http://users.pandora.be/guerilla_tactics/

wahl · Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England

Hi Kevin,
well you've really given me loads to think about, I will read up on your cycles link tonight. Have loads of stuff to say and ask, but no time tonight.......to be resumed! Thanks.
Love
wahl

wahl · Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England

Just one question before I go, what attracted you to the BK/spiritual stuff in the first place............music have anything to do with it?
love
wahl

Guest · Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:36 pm Post subject:

My previous life, without (much) doubt.[/quote]

wahl · Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England

Kevin

Guest · Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:21 am Post subject:

wahl · Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England

Guest · Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:19 am Post subject:

I think it is not correct to make the simple distinction between body conscious - soul conscious. There are many ways of being both body and soul conscious. You can for example be soul conscious and body conscious at the same time -- it's hard to put an experience like that in to words ...

Anyway, I believe it is not bad to be body conscious, as long as it is well-balanced. I think it's useless focussing entirely on the soul conscious part as an ultimate goal in your life.

vidya · Joined: 02 Nov 2004 Posts: 7 Location: America

I agree here that when you are complete soul-conscious than there is no diffrence b/w physical, and the non-physcial because they both merege at this level. They become one.

wahl · Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England