i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.
it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?
) to grasp to me are interesting.. .
Little Toe,
I am going to dip my "little toe" into Randy's website and try to get a handle on precisely what he expects. At the same time, I am going to review a few other phenomena besides spoon bending that I think would best serve to illustrate that something real is going on, and is not all mumbo-jumbo and myth.
Don't expect me to be ready later today.
Rod P.
i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.
it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?
) to grasp to me are interesting.. .
Terry,
Well that is an interesting challenge, alright, and a Million Dollars is certainly a lot of money.
One thing I would like to know beforehand. What are the ground rules? For example, when it comes to testing, is he going to state that his rules are the only ones he will accept for purposes of validating the phenonemon? Or are we dealing with a kind of stacked deck here, all in his favour?
I keep harping on one important consideration here: Science does not have all the answers. What you call being "testable" or "verifiable" may in itself be biased or at least, less than objective. So then, who gets to be the judge, especially when it comes to things of the paranormal? There are so many things we and science do not understand yet. But that does not necessarily mean the phenomena are not real. In that case, we need to at least leave some room for the possibility of something really going on here, even in the absence of definitive measurement or explanation. This is somewhat like courtroom, where a case may be decided based on the preponerance of the evidence, in the absence of absolute hard evidence.
Hence, I am suspicious of Randy's motives. He is already hell-bent on not believing, and there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see. If he does see an effect or phenomenon, he simply goes about debunking it by using "Magic" which is nothing more than "Illusion" to begin with, and from there concludes for the rest of us that this is all hokum. I am not the least interested in playing the game on those terms, and that does not mean I am copping out either. This has to be fair for everyone concerned.
A good example is the topic of UFO's. and project Blue Book. There were some scientists on that panel who resigned precisely because of the cover-ups and manipulations of the facts that were going on. They lost their objectivity, and now there are a ton of people out there who are absolutely convinced they and the government is not to be trusted, and there is some justification to this. There is a lot of this kind of thing going on. The deck is pretty well stacked against the masses by the powers that be, because the governments threaten dismissal to anyone who divulges many of their secrets that would otherwise shed real light on these kinds of things.
Rod P.
i remember being at a bookstudy one tuesday night.
i had just recently been reinstated, and i was trying hard to believe the stuff the wbts was teaching, as i went back to be reunited with my family.
(this did not mean i had all the doctrinal beliefs straightened out so that i was an "automatic believer" just because of being reinstated.).
Running Man,
Sorry Man! (forgive the pun). I'm trying to remember his name, but it's too long ago. I am not an active Chess Player in terms of tournaments these days.
It was in Medicine Hat High School, Grades 10 -12 (1959 thru 1961 school terms). In 1959 my French teacher, Mr. LePage started the chess club, and a bunch of us joined. We spent our two-hour lunch periods playing chess with him, and for months it was almost obsessive, we loved it so much. It took a few months before we were able to defeat our mentor, but we did it, and he gracefully congratualted us. Then he set us up for Round Robin tournaments in the club, which we played to the end. Then the point came where he thought we were good enough players to take on an outsider, so he invited the Alberta Chess Champion to come to the school one evening, where he would take the entire club on in a Simultaeous Tournament. It was a big event for us all, and none of us could beat him, but we learned a lot.
The chess club disbanded when I was in Grade 11, but we carried on in the cafeteria on our lunch hours, and we did our own competitions. Our long tables were always full of chess sets, and there was hardly room for our lunch buckets. We would read up in a number of chess manuals certain moves and share them with our peers. The longer we played, the harder it was to outsmart the other guy, because we all got used to our patterns of plays and habits of thinking, etc. We even spent many a weekend at friends homes for weekend chess marathons.
Fast forward a few months. My brother, who was in Grade 10 at the time, met a new girl friend. He told me her father loved to play chess. We were not allowed to go out on weekdays, but could on weekends. So one Friday night he took me to her place to introduce me to her father. (I think he used me to get in the good graces of the father, so he could date his daughter. ). The next thing I knew, I spent all my weekends for months going to his place to play chess. (Well, missed the odd one, of course.) Also, he was a pretty spiritually-minded person, as a member of the United Church, and we had a number of biblical discussions, although I was not a JW as yet.
That's about all I can recall from that period of time. Over the years I have played chess, but was not involved with any chess clubs, so would probably need to do a lot of brushing up. I still remember most of the strategies though, which have served me well over the years. We also played "simultaneous chess" where you move the pieces in your head, as well as "blindfold chess" where there are 3 chess boards and 2 sets. The black and white opponents sit with their backs to each other, with one board, and only a black or white set. The other end of the board is blank, with no pieces. The guy in the middle, the Monitor, has a full board. As white makes the first move, the Monitor duplicates the move on his board, and then tells black it's his turn. Black makes a move, and so on. Only the Monitor and the audience gets to see the whole game. White and Black have to imagine what the opponent has done on the last move. There are only two questions you can ask. "Is this move possible?" to which the Monitor can answer either "Yes" or "No". The second question is "Can I take a piece?" The Monitor can reply only with "yes" or "No". If you move and put the other guy in Check, the Monitor says out loud "Black, you are in Check from the diagonal (or the vertical)". If White lands legally on a square occupied by Black (such as moving a pawn on the diagonal and asking if the move is possible) then that piece is removed from Black's board. Oftentimes you would hear your opponent cussing when he loses a piece, and that's how you knew you took one of his pieces. The Monitor never said a word. Anyway, we had a lot of fun with that one.
i remember being at a bookstudy one tuesday night.
i had just recently been reinstated, and i was trying hard to believe the stuff the wbts was teaching, as i went back to be reunited with my family.
(this did not mean i had all the doctrinal beliefs straightened out so that i was an "automatic believer" just because of being reinstated.).
Running Man;
Thanks for the article. Yesiree, that was the one.
Amen, brother. Congrats. on your sons fine achievements. Wish I was there.
I played a guy who was the Alberta Chess Champion every Friday night for 3 months before finally being able to beat him for the first time. It was a matter of getting to know how his mind thinks, and then do something he doesn't expect.
Check_Your_Premises,
Have fun, you guys. No guilt trips, now.
AuntieJane,
Look again! STALEMATE
Tetrapod;
Don't think I could handle that one. Smoke really gets to me. Sorry.
i remember being at a bookstudy one tuesday night.
i had just recently been reinstated, and i was trying hard to believe the stuff the wbts was teaching, as i went back to be reunited with my family.
(this did not mean i had all the doctrinal beliefs straightened out so that i was an "automatic believer" just because of being reinstated.).
I remember being at a bookstudy one Tuesday night. I had just recently been reinstated, and I was trying hard to believe the stuff the WBTS was teaching, as I went back to be reunited with my family. (This did not mean I had all the doctrinal beliefs straightened out so that I was an "automatic believer" just because of being reinstated.)
We were studying an article, I believe it was in the Watchtower (or Awake), and it talked about playing the game of Chess. It went on to say that this was wrong because it encouraged the worldly "spirit of competition". Then it brought up the case of some army Colonel (or high ranking military man) who described his experience of what it was like for him to play chess. Paraphrasing from memory, for him, the squares of the chess board would disappear, and in their place would be various kinds of terrain, and the chess pieces would turn into real characters in a War Game. As he played chess, it would be like he was actually engaging in military combat, with the objective of defeating the enemy. It was like the chess board came alive in his world of make-believe. (Cuckoo - cuckoo - cuckoo)
Now, of course, a guy like that has to be pretty darn weird to play a game of chess from inside that kind of fantasy. He must be living in a world of "looney-tunes". The lights are on in the elevator, but there's no-one home. He's one brick short of a load. Let's see, any other cliches? Oh well, I'm sure you guys can think of a few. Ha! Ha!
But I absolutely fail to see how this has anything to do with the way the average person plays the game. And can anyone tell me what is wrong with a little bit of healthy competition. If we were to follow their advice, then whenever we played a little game of baseball or hockey or volleyball, we would, out of Christian love, let the other side win. Then if everyone tried to let the other side win all the time, what would be the point of playing the game in the first place?
What a bunch of convoluted logic! And they expected us to swallow this stuff. I told the people at the bookstudy that I just couldn't accept that. They told me how sorry they felt for me, and what a struggle that must be for me to accept. Yeah, right, AND HOW! I played in Chess tournaments, and against some of the best, but I didn't see any evidence of the kind of crap they were trying to pedal to us. Anyway, I silently said to myself at the time, "They can just stick this one where the sun don't shine!" (excuse the vernacular)
Rod P.
i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.
it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?
) to grasp to me are interesting.. .
Terry,
I went to your skeptics site and took a look. I have a real problem with the Amazing Randy for starters.
I will openly acknowledge that there are those professed gifted psychics of the paranormal who are manipulators and deceivers- the Charlatans. It's all about money. This I despise. At the same time, guys like Randy simply demonstrate that by using the techniques and skills of their craft (i.e. the Magician), they can replicate the phenomena. They use techniques like sleight-of-hand, patter (verbal monalogue), diversion and cover-up, to name a few. The bending spoon technique, for instance, involves manipulating the spoon and fingers inside the palm to create the illusion of "bending" a spoon. I have watched this technique done in slow motion, showing exactly how it is done. Now just because Randy can perform this stunt, does not, in my books, disprove the phenomenon of metallic objects having their molecular structure being realigned, thereby permitting such an event from actually happening. There are many incidences of this occurring around the world by common people, without motivation of financial gain. I will spend some time on this topic to gather up some of these cases for you, and post them here (or maybe on another thread).
There are all kinds of real cases of precognition, mental telepathy and poltergeist incidences that, at the very least, demonstrate that something else is going on than what can be explained by conventional science. I would be happy to provide you with a number of those cases as well. I am just trying to tell you to keep an open mind on some of these things. Otherwise, I will tell you that "Your prejudice is showing." There are just too many scientists who all too readily dismiss things without examining them properly first, and in such cases, they are just as guilty of "The Religion of Skepticism" and are those believers who all too readily accept things on the basis of "The Religion of Faith". I am saying to the world, that we need some balance between these two extremes. (i.e. Keep an open mind. We might learn something!)
IMHO, one of the greatest barriers we erect in our pursuit of "Truth" is "Believing is seeing." (i.e. preconceived notions or prejudice, either for or against). We believe a certain point of view (like belonging to a Religion with a fixed position), and so everything we study and examine will almost inevitably ends up supporting our predisposed viewpoint, rather than reveals a "New Truth" to us. And lest you think I am pointing the finger at you, Terry, please note that I hold myself to this same standard, so that if you can demonstrate that I am guilty of the charge, then I will have to take my lumps as well. I try, but am also less than perfect. I just want us all to be fair and balanced in the dialogue.
Rod P.
i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.
it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?
) to grasp to me are interesting.. .
frankiespeakin,
I have a lot of material on Dr. Rupert Sheldrake- biologist.
On the internet, look up the topic:
Morphogenic Fields
There are many sites that deal with that subject, including the one I was quoting the articles from (i.e. "The Hundredth Monkey" and "DNA is influenced by Words and Frequencies")
This will lead you to all kinds of interesting articles and experiments.
Rod P.
i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.
it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?
) to grasp to me are interesting.. .
frankiespeakin,
Thanks for all the info. It looks like I will be a while exploring all this. Between you and Narkissos, I may be buried. He's got me going on Gnosticism. Now you've got me on Physics.
I used to have breakfast meetings every day with a group of friends who were all interested in physics, and particularly Einstein's General and Special Theory of Relativity. I always had difficulty with the premise of the formula E = M x (C squared), where C is the speed of light, a constant. That constant was determined by physical observation = 186,000 miles per second (approx). The presumption is that since nothing physically observed travels faster than that speed, therefore this is the limit of all matter travelling in this universe. (Then in the nuclear physics they discovered particles that actually travelled faster than the speed of light, called Tachyons.) Who is to say that anything travelling beyond the speed of light is even in the visible spectrum. All I'm saying is, that the formula is a mathematical construct, and when the mass of the object reaches the speed of light, the mass purportedly becomes infinite. (This is with respect to another formula that is much more complex than the one above.) In other words, the "formula tail" seems to be wagging the "physics dog". Mathematics can sometimes yield weird and even contradictory results, which makes it difficult to translate it's true meaning in terms of physical reality. Yet the logic all fits neatly. That is why I am suspicious of the mathematics of physics in some areas, especially when we reach the marginal limits of the universe.
Anyway, the main mentor around the breakfast table, Mel Winfield, has developed a theory consistent with the notion that the Universe did not begin with the Big Bang, but rather a Constant State Universe that goes thru cycles of expansion and contraction. He is by no means alone on this. He also has a radically new theory on the atom and particle physics and gravity, which, if true, would turn the world of physics upside down.
Rod P.
i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.
it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?
) to grasp to me are interesting.. .
frankiespeakin;
Sorry, I was not meaning to "hijack your thread". I probably got out of line here, for which I apologize. What got me hopping was Terry's question "What is Mysticism?" in which he seemed to me, via a quotation from Ayn Rand, to be pooh-poohing anything Mystical because it was "supernatural, unknowable, non-sensory, non-rationale, etc. (I have some familiarity with her "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead", and her materialistic cult-like following of the 1960's)
In terms of other articles and sources and proofs, I will see what I can provide you with. There is a ton of experimental data, but it tends to be dry and lengthy, and would certainly not be appropriate on this forum.
Narkissos;
I know that what I spoke of and presented here is, in some respects, considerably off-topic respecting "Mysticism and Interesting Thought by Rudolf Steiner". It's just that I detect there are some really deep thinkers here on this thread, and I was implying "Hold that thought (the title of this thread), while I address Terry's comments on the deficiencies of Mysticism. At the same time, Narkissos, when I read your comments about the internal limit of language and conceptualization, I could not help but feel how appropriate this article was in terms of thoughts and words having an influence on our internal DNA. We are talking here about our essence and our being, and this is, to me, connecting science with the mystical. For this reason, I do not feel that I was engaging in the fallacy of the "red herring", notwithstanding I was off-topic on Rudolf Steiner.
Terry;
I do not disagree with your "Argument from Ignorance" principle. I just don't see it being relevant to my input here. I do not argue that Mysiticism, et al is true, simply because no-one can prove otherwise. Neither do I maintain that Mysticism and the paranormal do NOT exist, because no-one has shown any proof that they exist. I am saying there IS enough evidence of paranormal phenomena (i.e. operating beyond known physical laws) that science cannot readily dismiss or explain away. Instead of Science adopting the predisposition that this cannot be, and then inevitably finding a way to debunk it all, it is time for Science to adopt a more open mind, they should work more collaberatively with the Mystics and the Schools of the Paranormal, and then see what they discover. I believe they would discover untold wonders about this Universe that do defy all known physical laws, and would even discover the underlying explanations for the effects and experiences of the Mystics, etc. What possible harm could that be?
Further, I am not debating the benefits of Science vs. Mysticism here. What has that got to do with the question of whether Mysticism is grounded in reality or otherwise. Both Science and Mysticism are doorways of perception. It does not surprise me that Science, which is focussed on the physical level of reality, has produced many benefits for mankind. It has also done some serious damage, such as bombing and killing technologies and toxic chemicals and pollutants on land, air and water. And who knows where genetic engineering and cloning is going to lead us- human cloning and the food supply? Science without true spirituality (ethics?) will become our downfall.
What I am arguing is that Science and Mysticism may not be as far apart as we may think, and that they should work more closely together, rather than each denying and criticizing the other. The article above, IMO, gives compelling reason for this, and the potential benefits are enormous and revolutionary.
Rod P.
in your time as jws did you ever meet any of the annointed?
did they have good christian personalities and what did they think of the wts and its governing body ?
i met one and he was very unhappy with the way the gb treated him and generally the way they run this society, he told me he wrote them two letters containing a long list of complaints with full scriptural support but he was ignored, first letter got a reply amounting to "no need to write to us" the second one no reply at all.
Wilyloman;
Thanks for letting me know. Will do some digging.
Why am I not surprised about this? I just knew someday the stats would make a lie of their teaching.
Rod P.
