Marriage is under fire!!

[andy]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:42:22 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:57:57 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

The problem is, is that there's nothing that can be shown or demonstrated
externally. Everybody has some of God, or more accurately, God/Goddess/
All That Is, inside them. And when you find it, you'll know. But most
people invest their whole life into denying its existence. Oh, well.

Typical religious propaganda and magical thinking, Rich. And, of course,
I bet you don't even realize why your statement, "most people invest their
whole life
into denying its existence" sounds absolutely silly to me. I deny the
Easter
Bunny, too. And I'm sure Easter Bunny proponents would say exactly the
same
thing you just did, too. And it would sound just as silly to me.

Jon

Yeah, that's ok. I've figured out that if you haven't experienced the
flow of Kundalini up from your own root chakra, it's impossible to even
imagine any such thing, kind of like describing an orgasm to a virgin.

Suffice it to say, I've found the secret to Infinite Wisdom, Infinite
Joy, Infinite Love, and, if it pans out, Eternal Life. If you want it,
I can tell you how to get it. Otherwise, have fun in the reality you've
created for yourself.

I can't do tricks yet, but I still have a long way to go.

watch out for the constant upgrade cycle.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[andy]

http://www.normism.org/

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
...
It's another thing to turn that experience into god and to then set
about to tell others they have to believe, too, or that they might
be damned forever or to fight wars over these experiences.

Wait! If I've given the impression that I'm trying to tell you you
"have to" believe anything, then I'm way off base. All I'm trying to
say is that it really is there, for those who care to do what it
takes to explore it. I just believe that when a person says, "There
is no such thing as God," they're simply dreadfully misinformed. A
victim of a limited paradigm, so to speak.

You might well believe this, however, you would be about as wrong as
anyone can be.

"God" is a nonsense, meaningless word. As I have stated many times, a
big man in the sky that can do *anything*, be *everywhere* at once, and
know *everything* is about as likely as me getting a shag from Brittany
Spears.

Stand back dude... and smell the roses. You've been suckered, along with
around 3 billion others.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:08:37 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net
wrote:

There's no way I could possibly prove that
I've felt what I have - there really isn't any way to satisfactorily
describe it, because it can't even be imagined until it's been
experienced.

So?

Look Rich, I know you already know this, but if someone tells me
that they are experiencing an invisible Harvey standing by their
side and telling them things
no one else can hear I will tend to imagine they are crazy. If they
are telling me the same thing that 100,000 other people experience,
such as, say, the "light at the end of the tunnel" for some
near-death experience, then I might think that this is something
related to human biology during these moments that
appears to have a common manifestation. But regardless, there is no
NECESSARY reason to build it up into some physical force of the
universe or some god or
heaven effect. It's human, that's all. Until there is reason to
believe there
is more to it, than that. Starting with the idea that it is human
is the more prosaic assumption to make, until there is evidence that
dispels it.

It's nice that you have experiences you really, really feel are
special. But
that's all it is.

See, this is kinda my point. What I have experienced, and I mean
experienced, physically/emotionally/mentally, is evidence _to me_
that there are, in truth, "more things in Heaven and Earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy". I really do seem to be able to see
things that other people can't, and I understand the mechanism.

No you don't. You only have the daft illusion that you see more. Quite
the contrary, you parrot off the *same* old shit of nebulous waffle that
has been around for 1000's of years, by the *majority* of the
population. What you say is nothing new whatsoever. On the other hand,
Darwinian evolution of memes and genes *is* relatively new, and works.
What's more, its axioms are easily experimentally verified to be
satisfied for humans, e.g. replication, selection and randam
generation/variation.

You understand nothing about any mechanisms. If you understood even the
slightest about geometric progression (e.g. 1.01^1000 generations) you
would indeed see the big picture. "What is mostly observed, is what
replicates the most". Its trivial.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:45:38 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

You need to prove statistically that there is a
*casual* response from a given action.

---
Sometimes, a casual chuckle will issue from a single, causal
transposition of letters.

--
John Fields

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:46:45 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:

you're doing the exact thing I was talking about - rubbishing chinese
medicine because its ideas are expressed in a language that you can't
translate into western terms and go - ok I see how that works.

I don't accept it as I se no credible scientific evidence that it
actually works. Like, controlled independent double-blind experiments
using 10000's of people, by several independent qualified research
groups.

That's because nobody wants to invest millions of dollars in researching
something that could break their dogma.

Actually, it's because no one should spend *their* time and money on *your*
claims. Try doing your own diligence and spending your own time doing the hard
work to demonstrate a case.

Some years ago, I spoke with an engineer who really thought he had a hot project
worth investing in. He had detailed diagrams, specifications, specific parts,
and he had tried hard to shop them around to all the businesses who might be
interested as well as others, without any luck. He complained to me that no one
seemed to see what he saw in his product idea and he felt everything was
hopeless.

I surprised him a little by asking, "Do you own a home? Still own a car? Why
should anyone else believe in your idea if you don't, yourself? If you aren't
willing to risk your own capital on your idea, why should you expect others to
do so?"

That's why nobody wants to invest millions in researching *your* something.
Until you've shown that you are willing to risk your own sorry hide in doing the
hard work to make a clear, objective case, no one should bother listening to
you, Rich. That silly dogma trip you are spouting is nothing more than your
imagination.

Don't expect any scientists to do *your* work for you, when you yourself cannot
be bothered.

Good day, Rich.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:42:52 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

All I'm trying to say is that it
really is there, for those who care to do what it takes to explore it.

Sure, Rich. And that just means that "If you are willing to accept my word on
it, then go out and spend *your* time going where I point." I suppose if I were
a dog and you my master, I might do that. But I'm not and you aren't.

I
just believe that when a person says, "There is no such thing as God,"
they're simply dreadfully misinformed. A victim of a limited paradigm,
so to speak.

I know that's how you neatly box up such people in your mind. Doesn't make it
so.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:34:51 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

if your life is satisfactory to you,

Of course it is. I am in love with that part of the beautiful tapestry of our
universe I can fathom and in studying those that remain mysteries to me.

However, I also know how to ignore inane claimants who cannot be bothered to
take out their own garbage.

you don't need any more of a philosophy

No, I just don't need someone pointing in some direction and expecting me to
care when they cannot be bothered to make their case in the first place.

Ta ta, Rich. Now that I understand you better.

Jon

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich Grise wrote:

<snip>

... What I have experienced, and I mean
experienced, physically/emotionally/mentally, is evidence _to me_
that there are, in truth, "more things in Heaven and Earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy". I really do seem to be able to see
things that other people can't, and I understand the mechanism.

At what level do you "understand the mechanism", merely
being able to elucidate each subjective step in the process,
or being able to express the process in terms of fundamental
physics (i.e. write equations)?

I even understand, and am learning to use, the mechanism of Reality
Creation. I want to share it like anybody wants to share the
wonderfullest thing ever - it's way cool, and plus, I'm hoping to
find somebody to whom this whole business is comprehensible, because
it's kinda lonely out here at the extremity of the lunatic fringe.

Then set up a webpage describing explicitly how you
achieved whichever understanding you have so that others can
attempt to duplicate your results. Try to keep it
economical, without referring to other philosophies (don't
expect people to spend years learning Kundalini during Step
Three, frinst).

Readers' successes and/or failures will help you refine
your understanding.

This is the most important, final step in the Scientific
Method; publishing. If you don't do it, nobody should be
expected to take anything you say seriously.

If it's entirely subjective, you'll find that out because
certain people will be unable to replicate your results due
to their mental malfunctions. If it's objectively real, at
least some readers will be able to add their insights as to
how it physically works.

The Buddha managed to reduce his system to the Eightfold
Path _and published it_, and it's been repeatedly verified.
Give it a shot. What do you have to lose?

The bottom line is, the object of the game is to arrange your own life
so it suits you. This apparently comes quite naturally for lots of
people.

Yes, it does. Unfortunately people's attempts to do so
interact, which is why Politics was invented. :>(

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[andy]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:54:35 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:51:50 +0100, andy <news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk
wrote:

There is a theoretical language, just not as complex as that used by
western medicine. I'd have to know more about it in depth to say whether
its predictions could be falsified in the way you're talking about. If
chinese medicine was wholly useless, I doubt that it would have lasted as
long as it has - it's not like things like people believing whether the
sun moved round the earth, which didn't make much practical difference to
their lives at the time.

If you read me closely, you'll see that I not only steered clear of saying that
it was useless, in practice, but went out of my way to make it clear that I
didn't intend such implications.

Knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow is useful, too. But it's not a theory
of science. It's a deduction *from* imaginative and independent theory.

There lies the key. Being useful or practical says nothing about whether or not
it's scientific.

That's fair enough - but it's also part of the point that I'm trying to
make - that people trained in science are too ready to say that things
like chinese medicine cannot work, because they do not use the same
methods of proof and argument/theory as science does.



--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:24:22 +0100, andy <news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
wrote:

There lies the key. Being useful or practical says nothing about whether or not
it's scientific.

That's fair enough - but it's also part of the point that I'm trying to
make - that people trained in science are too ready to say that things
like chinese medicine cannot work, because they do not use the same
methods of proof and argument/theory as science does.

I have several reactions to this.

First, you use the phrase "people trained in science." If by this you mean
clinicians, I frankly cannot agree that they are trained in science thinking.
It's been my long experience with clinicians that they are generally pretty bad
at science thinking skills (with exceptions, of course) and have rather poor
science training besides. (This does not apply to researchers in medicine, who
are today generally quite good at science and well-trained.) If you mean
scientists, then I cannot agree that they are "too ready to say" things.
Generally, scientists will remain uninterested until someone starts claiming
that their "product" is science. That's when you may start hearing them
complain. In this sense, I think you may be conflating the idea of "scientists"
with that of "western medical practitioners/clinicians."

Second, while I'm no big believer in folklore medicine, that doesn't mean that
such practices don't have their legitimate basis. Over time, the field of
practice may construct all kinds of mental artifices in order to make it easier
to teach and pass along experience to the next generation (which may amount to
helpful memory tricks, so to speak.) But that doesn't mean the practice can't
help folks, doesn't work or isn't practical.

My grandma knew that tansy tea was the way to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
Tansy is everywhere in the fields and when cows eat it they will abort, too.
And it really *is* effective, to be true. Now, some people in the practice of
folklore medicine might build up some stories about tansy and many other herbs
of various kinds for various purposes and construct some "theory" about all
this. Say, for example, that various plants have certain fundamental "elements"
to them and that tansy has this certain combination of these elements that makes
the abortion effect seem like a necessary consequence.

Does this mean that the "elements" are real, just because the various plants
with their claimed mixtures of these elements seems to explain the results that
are actually observed? No. Not at all. Any number of such "theories" using
many different starting fundamental elements could be similarly constructed,
with no one of them being able to show that it should be preferred over another
"theory." Just because it works doesn't mean the explanation is true.

Third, you seem to suggest (when you say, "because they do not use the same
methods of proof and argument/theory as science does") that they have other
*equally* valid methods of proof and argument as are used in science. If you
are suggesting that this is so, then I have to say I rather doubt it.

Jon

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:24:22 +0100, andy
<news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

That's fair enough - but it's also part of the point that I'm trying to
make - that people trained in science are too ready to say that things
like chinese medicine cannot work, because they do not use the same
methods of proof and argument/theory as science does.

---
I don't think anyone's saying that Chinese medicine doesn't work, I
think what's being said is that the Chinese explanation for its
efficacy is painted with too broad a stoke for the reasons behind its
functioning to be more perfectly understood.

Kind of like the difference between BASIC and assembler.

That is, write a line of .bas and you'll get something to happen, but
if you want to understand _why_ it happens you'll learn how to make it
happen by writing it in .asm

--
John Fields

 

[Rich Grise]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:42:52 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

All I'm trying to say is that it
really is there, for those who care to do what it takes to explore it.

Sure, Rich. And that just means that "If you are willing to accept my
word on
it, then go out and spend *your* time going where I point." I suppose if
I were
a dog and you my master, I might do that. But I'm not and you aren't.

Oh, heavens. You're taking this entirely too seriously. I mean you no

harm. ;-)

In fact, it's none of my business what kind of philosophy other people
embrace - I simply seem to have that preaching bug, or whatever you call
the impulse that makes me want to shoot off my mouth all the time about
my new paradigm.

I
just believe that when a person says, "There is no such thing as God,"
they're simply dreadfully misinformed. A victim of a limited paradigm,
so to speak.

I know that's how you neatly box up such people in your mind. Doesn't
make it so.

Well, in _my_ mind, it's they who have boxed themselves up. I simply

have the ability to see outside the box.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
...
It's another thing to turn that experience into god and to then set
about to tell others they have to believe, too, or that they might
be damned forever or to fight wars over these experiences.

Wait! If I've given the impression that I'm trying to tell you you
"have to" believe anything, then I'm way off base. All I'm trying to
say is that it really is there, for those who care to do what it
takes to explore it. I just believe that when a person says, "There
is no such thing as God," they're simply dreadfully misinformed. A
victim of a limited paradigm, so to speak.

You might well believe this, however, you would be about as wrong as
anyone can be.

"God" is a nonsense, meaningless word. As I have stated many times, a
big man in the sky that can do *anything*, be *everywhere* at once, and
know *everything* is about as likely as me getting a shag from Brittany
Spears.

Stand back dude... and smell the roses. You've been suckered, along with
around 3 billion others.

You're still thinking of "a big man." That's Santa Claus. I'm simply
claiming that the entire Universe is conscious, and there are
dimensionalities that we're not usually trained to perceive. And that
the nature of "stuff" isn't really what "they" think it is. But
it's as hard to explain in plain English as quantum mechanics would
be to explain in piglatin. Maybe a better analogy would be explaining
QM to somebody who's never even heard of any math higher than algebra,
or something like that. The words don't even mean the same things
that they mean in ordinary reality.

Clearly, I'm the crazy one, I've got no problem with that. Like I say,
I'm casting about (trolling?) for a kindred spirit, since it's lonely
at the outskirts of the lunatic fringe.

In the interim, I can see that it's absolutely necessary for you to
keep yourself convinced that there couldn't possibly be any such thing
as "god," because if there is, you're going to hell - if there isn't,
you might escape into mere oblivion. >:->

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

snip

... What I have experienced, and I mean
experienced, physically/emotionally/mentally, is evidence _to me_
that there are, in truth, "more things in Heaven and Earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy". I really do seem to be able to see
things that other people can't, and I understand the mechanism.

At what level do you "understand the mechanism", merely
being able to elucidate each subjective step in the process,
or being able to express the process in terms of fundamental
physics (i.e. write equations)?

I even understand, and am learning to use, the mechanism of Reality
Creation. I want to share it like anybody wants to share the
wonderfullest thing ever - it's way cool, and plus, I'm hoping to
find somebody to whom this whole business is comprehensible, because
it's kinda lonely out here at the extremity of the lunatic fringe.

Then set up a webpage describing explicitly how you
achieved whichever understanding you have so that others can
attempt to duplicate your results. Try to keep it
economical, without referring to other philosophies (don't
expect people to spend years learning Kundalini during Step
Three, frinst).

I see what you're saying here, unfortunately, it _can_ take

years to learn some of the principles - what's even harder,
of course, is unlearning the old stuff.

And all the information is available in book form, and some stuff
live on the web:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22right+use+of+will%22&btnG=Google+Search
cut-n-paste if it wraps.

Readers' successes and/or failures will help you refine
your understanding.

This is the most important, final step in the Scientific
Method; publishing. If you don't do it, nobody should be
expected to take anything you say seriously.

Yeah, that's it. But it's kind of daunting to try to express

"find and release your trapped unexpressed emotions, and
stay present for the movement of the magnetic essence, to
hear the message of the Divine Will..."

It kinda calls for the seeker to do introspection orders of
magnitude more intense than any known earthly form of psychoanalysis
or 12-step recovery groups or new age healing seances or whatever.

It's kinda like saying, "You can experience Heaven on Earth, all
you have to do is go through Hell on the way. You might or might
not survive."

I really don't expect many takers.

If it's entirely subjective, you'll find that out because
certain people will be unable to replicate your results due
to their mental malfunctions. If it's objectively real, at
least some readers will be able to add their insights as to
how it physically works.

Now, that would be way cool - I don't have the math, physics,
or QM/QE background to do the equations, and there's some stuff
that's completely outside any previously known paradigm that
the language simply doesn't exist yet - I got some of the
"information" by reading stories designed to trigger certain
responses in my spirit/mind/body/will. This is not always
pleasant - in fact, you would have to reexperience any past
unpleasantness that you've "repressed," and not completely
processed, to remove the blocks to new information.

The Buddha managed to reduce his system to the Eightfold
Path _and published it_, and it's been repeatedly verified.
Give it a shot. What do you have to lose?

Nothing, literally. But the story has already been published,
and it itself says that it's not for everybody.

The bottom line is, the object of the game is to arrange your own life
so it suits you. This apparently comes quite naturally for lots of
people.

Yes, it does. Unfortunately people's attempts to do so
interact, which is why Politics was invented. :>(

Ah, we've come full circle. If Free Will hadn't been so severly

damaged, about all that we'd need governments for would be nexi.

And according to the books, which claim to be channeled from
God in the first person, the way things are needs to be healed or
everything and everyone will die forever. So there is some
urgency to it.

Anyway, there are just two basic principles, which have many
names:

Electric Magnetic
Spirit Will
Male Female
Yang Yin
Energy Matter
Thought Feeling
orthogonal fractal
rigid flexible

And the process is simplicity itself - Spirit inspires, Will
responds, and creation takes place at the balance point, called
Heart. And the fourth part of God is Form, so everybody can see
what got created. Spirit has responsibility to give unconditional
loving acceptance, and Will has responsibility to separate the
good from the bad. Just Light, expanding uncontrolled, doesn't
create - it destroys, and so it needs the magnetic Will to balance
with it, give its response to sort out what goes where and _what
to keep_ (which is where the problem has been since the beginning
of time), and together, with Form, they hold space open for the
creation to exist in.

Nothin' to it!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:24:22 +0100, andy
news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk> wrote:


That's fair enough - but it's also part of the point that I'm trying to
make - that people trained in science are too ready to say that things
like chinese medicine cannot work, because they do not use the same
methods of proof and argument/theory as science does.

---
I don't think anyone's saying that Chinese medicine doesn't work, I
think what's being said is that the Chinese explanation for its
efficacy is painted with too broad a stoke for the reasons behind its
functioning to be more perfectly understood.

Kind of like the difference between BASIC and assembler.

That is, write a line of .bas and you'll get something to happen, but
if you want to understand _why_ it happens you'll learn how to make it
happen by writing it in .asm

I'd say it's more like the difference between a digital and analog

computer. The language of Chinese medicine, and its understanding
and practice, evolved in a different context than our billiard-
ball universe, so the two languages don't even have concepts that
can be mapped one-to-one. The idea of "a flow of chi" is total
anathema to a Euclidean billiard-ball scientist. There's no common
referent.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:01:00 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

snip
I know that's how you neatly box up such people in your mind. Doesn't
make it so.

Well, in _my_ mind, it's they who have boxed themselves up. I simply
have the ability to see outside the box.

A fact not in evidence, Rich.

Jon

 

[Rich Grise]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:46:45 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:

you're doing the exact thing I was talking about - rubbishing chinese
medicine because its ideas are expressed in a language that you can't
translate into western terms and go - ok I see how that works.

I don't accept it as I se no credible scientific evidence that it
actually works. Like, controlled independent double-blind experiments
using 10000's of people, by several independent qualified research
groups.

That's because nobody wants to invest millions of dollars in researching
something that could break their dogma.

Actually, it's because no one should spend *their* time and money on
*your*
claims. Try doing your own diligence and spending your own time doing the
hard work to demonstrate a case.

I can't say whether any acupuncturists would want to undertake a mission
like that, just to convince western skeptics that acupwhatsis actually
works. They know it does, their patients know it does, so what?

Some years ago, I spoke with an engineer who really thought he had a hot
project
worth investing in. He had detailed diagrams, specifications, specific
parts, and he had tried hard to shop them around to all the businesses who
might be
interested as well as others, without any luck. He complained to me that
no one seemed to see what he saw in his product idea and he felt
everything was hopeless.

I surprised him a little by asking, "Do you own a home? Still own a car?
Why
should anyone else believe in your idea if you don't, yourself? If you
aren't willing to risk your own capital on your idea, why should you
expect others to do so?"

That's why nobody wants to invest millions in researching *your*
something. Until you've shown that you are willing to risk your own sorry
hide in doing the hard work to make a clear, objective case, no one should
bother listening to
you, Rich. That silly dogma trip you are spouting is nothing more than
your imagination.

This I'll take exception to, but the rest is quite accurate. I do know
which is my imagination and which is observation. I should stop telling
people about the scope of my vision because if it's true, it would be
very intimidating.

So never mind. It's all in my head, I'm a nut, and I talk (or post) too
much.

Sorry.

Don't expect any scientists to do *your* work for you, when you yourself
cannot be bothered.

Well, on acupuncture, I really can't say, as I have no interest, other than
I might look into it for a touch of alcoholic neuropathy in my lower legs.

On that "I have a new vision of the Universe, and I've seen God" stuff,
I've done the homework, in spades. But to go into that would only further
convince everybody of my insanity, so I think I won't go there unless

Good day, Rich.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:59:03 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Well, on acupuncture, I really can't say, as I have no interest, other than
I might look into it for a touch of alcoholic neuropathy in my lower legs.

What I said wasn't said with acupuncture in mind. Why do you think so? Or is
it because you brought the subject up so you could later walk away from it?

My point is about what *you* are claiming for yourself. Period.

As I said, don't expect any scientists to do *your* work for you, when you
yourself cannot be bothered.

On that "I have a new vision of the Universe, and I've seen God" stuff,
I've done the homework, in spades.

Saying so is easy to do.

But to go into that would only further
convince everybody of my insanity, so I think I won't go there unless

Perhaps so. Given the stream of claims from you so far without any evidential
showing, I wouldn't be surprised if more of the same would only worsen
impressions.

Jon

--
"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and
remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:42:52 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net
wrote:

All I'm trying to say is that it
really is there, for those who care to do what it takes to explore
it.

Sure, Rich. And that just means that "If you are willing to accept
my word on
it, then go out and spend *your* time going where I point." I
suppose if I were
a dog and you my master, I might do that. But I'm not and you
aren't.

Oh, heavens. You're taking this entirely too seriously. I mean you no
harm. ;-)

In fact, it's none of my business what kind of philosophy other people
embrace - I simply seem to have that preaching bug, or whatever you
call the impulse that makes me want to shoot off my mouth all the
time about my new paradigm.

I
just believe that when a person says, "There is no such thing as
God," they're simply dreadfully misinformed. A victim of a limited
paradigm, so to speak.

I know that's how you neatly box up such people in your mind.
Doesn't make it so.

Well, in _my_ mind, it's they who have boxed themselves up. I simply
have the ability to see outside the box.

No you don't. You are completely indoctrinated in your arbitary
religious views, the same views that have been around for 1000+ years.
You are completely sealed up in your box.

The reality is that many of us "scientists", actually started off with
some of these daft views as well. The society majority forces them on to
one. I remember 30+ years ago actually giving semi-credence to things
like tarot cards, palm reading ufos, spirits. It is after the fact that
one actually examines these things, in detail, and realises that its all
nonsense. You simply haven't been able to throw out the garbage that you
have been spoon fed from childhood. You are also unable to understand
this. Your simply too far gone.

You need to understand exactly why you believe what you do. From first p
rinciples. Unfortunately, you cant because you don't have the scientific
training to understand understanding itself. Go and get one before you
start presenting your silly views as fact.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.