KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Leslie / Rees)

Commentary 9 (to R2 by Leslie)

YOU'D HAVE TO GET HERE FIRST
or where am I ?
by Adrian van der Meijden
5 November 2003, posted 9 November 2003

<1>
LET'S take it that sensory products [ie concepts] are "the same" as theories and therefore not NECESSARILY comparable with other such products. Given alternative assumptions and beliefs we come up with different concepts. Thought experiment: For a balloon filled with liquid and vibrated at different frequencies different resonance patterns show up. Tagging that along with Sheldrake's morphogenesis somehow form is affected and changes. A bee does not see what we see or a bat does. Instead of refined, intellectualised, well defined, narrow slot concepts our mind is organised to tackle sloppy, ambiguous, wide range notions across a set of frequency domains. Combine that with a sensory requirement to sort order from chaos, or gestalt forms from a background AND the fact that we do not see at the surface or the senses but inside the brain where such forms are constructed it follows that we are not even likely to "know" the same ?things? What we get as knowledge amounts to already predigested by a fixed method artefacts. To frame generalisations on top of that, as called philosophising, AND to call those *real* is to hump outrageous on silly generalisations. It, sort of, mistakes what the philosopher's brain cooks up with what gives everywhere, in everybody's head and then contrasts what two such heads achieve in binary right/wrong dogmatic stance. On top of that they're both specialistists and not syncretists.

<2>
"Even though one masters various profound teachings, it is like placing a single hair in vast space. Even if one gains all the essential knowledge in the world, it is like throwing a drop of water into a deep ravine". -- Te-shan

Does playing blind man and elephants lead to dealing with the consciousness issue or what ? One may distinguish two types of "understanding". Type one fits things into known categories - groupwise or singly - and wrongs opponents when anisotropy occurs. Type two comes as like Feynman trying to understand the mind of god, by making it up as opponent sees it, which implies a Father William type of mind. Type one understanding ONLY leads to stand off arguments and therefore fails in terms of generalisation. Moreover, swapping "you're wrong" notes does not lead into getting it right. Moreover in view of the stated principle/idea that authority has no authority, etc blahh, just as well I don't want any.

<3>
Gestalts and fields prefer action at a distance which brings There here. Vide; take the present and me standing on my front porch going shopping. This consumes future time pushed into a present of mine, whence it moves into the past as I experience this. Finished shopping I do it again to find myself back on the front porch having to bridge a credibility gap of time remembering my being there before, having lost double the time it took to go shopping. It begins to make SOME sense when I take an OOBE view of the situation like a puppet moved inside a playhouse, WHILE at the same time the sensation/impression is that "I" experience this inside the head/mind, IFF one allows/includes locational awareness. Sounds like the plot of a soap opera. IF someone can settle exactly where the real "here" is let me know. The Hidden snag is that unless I put that self into a context free "here only" eternal *now* I cannot possibly experience this as I'd have to be both trapped in a movable, closed locality and aware outside of that box. Oh yes, distance/time squared matches E = MC^2 and bundling one's typology with topology and being aetheric about it. Once you got that one figured out try an infinite numberfield and how to get from any a to any b, repeatedly, and watching how you think while you think.

----------------------------------------

Adrian vd Meijden