tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-927396480055054170.post183031305440787200..comments2023-06-08T06:53:33.892-04:00Comments on A TRANSIT OF CONTINGENCIES: Part Two: Meta-Realities Beyond Either \ OrBruce Duensinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06770861553045757360noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-927396480055054170.post-63945831757429161502014-12-12T17:40:18.631-05:002014-12-12T17:40:18.631-05:00As always, you do a wonderful job of leading me to...As always, you do a wonderful job of leading me to confront the vicissitudes of "thought" by plunging me to it's depths. You, my friend, much like Carl Jung, are an ingenious Trickster. Following our confrontation, when I later come up for air, I know no more, but see more clearly. Thank you.Rip Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14285545564377891230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-927396480055054170.post-57258397940991067062014-12-12T13:29:23.093-05:002014-12-12T13:29:23.093-05:00Quilan
Anytime someone suggests I take LSD and &qu...Quilan<br />Anytime someone suggests I take LSD and "it will all make sense" I have to question either their sincerity or the basis of that statement if I took it seriously. Image and imagination remain as the basis for altering one's perceptions and it's simply more of the same from another context.<br />Other realities are always contingent.Bruce Duensinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06770861553045757360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-927396480055054170.post-63821001817556632512014-12-12T13:06:17.387-05:002014-12-12T13:06:17.387-05:00Anon
I can see your issue if one takes Aristotle a...Anon<br />I can see your issue if one takes Aristotle at his word in terms of a conceptual model, but I would say that our definition of normal is always in flux, although consensus takes longer to steer. I would also ask, what exactly is paranormal (?), as that definition over time is also subject to flux.<br />To my mind language relies on stereotyping experiential perceptions.<br />We objectify our referents by mixing descriptions with what is described. At the most fundamental level, all of this is ( to my mind ) more of a social scripting than anything else as thought in of itself is based on incomplete knowledge. There will always be holes in this knowledge and science investigates them by theorising this or that, experimenting, always revising, There will always be the unpredictable in relation to our maths, I am suggesting that perception is a function of images and imaging and that our definition of being conscious is self referential. Our objective reality or objectifying phenomenon while this objectification is imaginary is at the crux of this. What exactly is a ghost? What exactly is a demon, a UFO? Yet these terms are identifiers for an imaginary context. I can respect your point of view but we disagree on this perhaps but my own thoughts resemble more of a set of suspicions rather than beliefs and those are subject to change as well.<br />Bruce<br />Bruce Duensinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06770861553045757360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-927396480055054170.post-73910556513594403822014-12-12T13:01:41.726-05:002014-12-12T13:01:41.726-05:00Long winded way to realise that we live in a multi...Long winded way to realise that we live in a multi dimensional reality.<br />I.e. Infinite parallel universes with their own past / future timelines. <br />Pretty much spiritually 101, that reality is a hologram and each person has zillions of timelines. Take some LSD' it'll all make sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103160488463932412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-927396480055054170.post-17379369044267590042014-12-12T12:39:00.217-05:002014-12-12T12:39:00.217-05:00Bruce, interesting thoughts.
However I am troubl...Bruce, interesting thoughts. <br /><br />However I am troubled by one glaring inconsistency in your proposition that "Either it's imaginary or it's an objectified causation in relation to anomalies. What if it is both? Is there another reality beyond Self/ Not Self, or taking another example as I have used in the past, Normal \Paranormal? Both are true and yet not true."<br /><br />It seems to me you've chosen to ignore the Law of Non-contradiction, and yet applied it simultaneously. <br /><br />Aristotle's Law of Non-contradiction says A does not equal non-A, in the same time and the same sense.<br /><br />This is an absolutely fundamental axiom that establishes the existence of truth, and without which logic becomes impossible.<br /><br />You seem to be implying "Either we accept the illogical concept that contradictory views can both be true or we are in error."<br /><br />Some refinement of your concept might be in order. <br /><br />If truly objective reality does not exist, or is dependent on our perceptions, then any attempt to prove that position is simply ". . . a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com