there is a sense in which sense itself is sensed as.....

[Guest guest]

there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

 

but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

 

this is not something to do with the epistemology of mysticism but

rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is said by

mystics to be 'nondual'.

 

this is not a philosophical position but just the way things are .

 

the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum mechanics,

where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended.

 

even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to

solve the background dependence problem, applying what they call the

'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of nonduality.

 

" reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

 

ask yourself how you know the things that you really know, and which

you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll find that

reasoning is not the way you do it.

 

this relates to what you say about identity, in that certain knowledge

cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity.

 

thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical with its

object. knowledge that is identical with its object must be 'mystical'

knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

 

hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

 

all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

 

of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

 

ultimately no one has any choice.

 

and who could care less.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

>

> but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

> practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

>

> this is not something to do with the epistemology of mysticism but

> rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is said by

> mystics to be 'nondual'.

>

> this is not a philosophical position but just the way things are .

>

> the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum

mechanics,

> where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended.

>

> even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to

> solve the background dependence problem, applying what they call

the

> 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of

nonduality.

>

> " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

>

> ask yourself how you know the things that you really know, and

which

> you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll find that

> reasoning is not the way you do it.

>

> this relates to what you say about identity, in that certain

knowledge

> cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity.

>

> thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical with its

> object. knowledge that is identical with its object must

be 'mystical'

> knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

>

> hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

>

> all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

>

> of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

> 'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

>

> ultimately no one has any choice.

>

> and who could care less.

>

> .b b.b.

>

Thank you Bob I enjoy reading this.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

>

> but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

> practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

>

> this is not something to do with the epistemology of mysticism but

> rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is said by

> mystics to be 'nondual'.

>

> this is not a philosophical position but just the way things are .

>

> the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum mechanics,

> where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended.

>

> even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to

> solve the background dependence problem, applying what they call the

> 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of

nonduality.

>

> " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

>

> ask yourself how you know the things that you really know, and which

> you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll find that

> reasoning is not the way you do it.

>

> this relates to what you say about identity, in that certain

knowledge

> cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity.

>

> thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical with its

> object. knowledge that is identical with its object must

be 'mystical'

> knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

>

> hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

>

> all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

>

> of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

> 'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

>

> ultimately no one has any choice.

>

> and who could care less.

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

I know you're trying, but excuse me lttl mn, who's listening to the

name Canute?

 

Be Happy Bbbrt.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

> >

> > but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

> > practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

> >

> > this is not something to do with the epistemology of mysticism but

> > rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is said by

> > mystics to be 'nondual'.

> >

> > this is not a philosophical position but just the way things are .

> >

> > the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum mechanics,

 

> > where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended.

> >

> > even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to

> > solve the background dependence problem, applying what they call the

> > 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of

> nonduality.

> >

> > " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

> >

> > ask yourself how you know the things that you really know, and which

> > you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll find that

> > reasoning is not the way you do it.

> >

> > this relates to what you say about identity, in that certain

> knowledge

> > cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity.

> >

> > thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical with its

> > object. knowledge that is identical with its object must

> be 'mystical'

> > knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

> >

> > hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

> >

> > all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

> >

> > of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

> > 'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

> >

> > ultimately no one has any choice.

> >

> > and who could care less.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> I know you're trying, but excuse me lttl mn, who's listening to the

> name Canute?

>

> Be Happy Bbbrt.

 

 

 

...i think canute has some insight. don't you?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

> > >

> > > but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

> > > practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

> > >

> > > this is not something to do with the epistemology of mysticism

but

> > > rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is said

by

> > > mystics to be 'nondual'.

> > >

> > > this is not a philosophical position but just the way things

are .

> > >

> > > the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum

mechanics,

>

> > > where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is

suspended.

> > >

> > > even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it,

to

> > > solve the background dependence problem, applying what they

call the

> > > 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of

> > nonduality.

> > >

> > > " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

> > >

> > > ask yourself how you know the things that you really know, and

which

> > > you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll find

that

> > > reasoning is not the way you do it.

> > >

> > > this relates to what you say about identity, in that certain

> > knowledge

> > > cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity.

> > >

> > > thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical with

its

> > > object. knowledge that is identical with its object must

> > be 'mystical'

> > > knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

> > >

> > > hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

> > >

> > > all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

> > >

> > > of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

> > > 'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

> > >

> > > ultimately no one has any choice.

> > >

> > > and who could care less.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > I know you're trying, but excuse me lttl mn, who's listening to

the

> > name Canute?

> >

> > Be Happy Bbbrt.

>

>

>

> ..i think canute has some insight. don't you?

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

For those interested, here's the full story.

 

" It is advisable to find out what mysticism is before forming an

opinions on it. It isn't rocket science after all. I'm sure, WA

Dunkley, that you wouldn't think of commenting on physics without

some knowledge of it. Why then do this for mysticism? Presumably the

same lack of rigour that allows Ayn Rand to write such rubbish about

it. You don't even even define it as a mystic would, or even as the

dictionary does.

We cannot just ignore the important point made by Max 1975 about the

limits of reason as a means of acquiring knowledge, nor the point

made by someone else that the unfalsifiabilty of solipsism entails

that knowledge gained by perception can never be certain knowledge.

These issue are more subtle than you allow, and if you investigate

them you'll find that mysticism cannot be dismissed as a means of

acquiring knowldge on grounds of reason. By contrast, analytical

reasoning of the kind used by Ayn Rand can be dismissed quite easily

as no more than guesswork, the derivation of uncertain and relative

truths and falsities from uncertain axioms.

 

You like the following part, didn't you Bbbrt?

 

- Yes, there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions. But

this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical practice

leads one, taken to its conclusion. This is not something to do with

the epistemology of mysticism but rather is has to do with the

ontology of reality, which is said by mystics to be 'nondual'. This

is not a philosophical position but just the way things are (they

say). We see the same " embracing of contradiction " in QM, where

the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended. Even

quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to solve

the background dependence problem, applying what they call

the 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of

nonduality.

The comment that " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect,

as Les Sleeth observes. Ask yourself how you know the things that you

really know, and which you know you know, absolutely and for certain,

and you'll find that reasoning is not the way you do it. This relates

to what you say about identity, in that certain knowledge cannot be

acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity. Thus Aristotle's

comment that true knowledge is identical with its object. Knowledge

that is identical with its object must be 'mystical' knowledge, since

it is knowledge of what one is. (Hence Descarte's 'cogito'). All

other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

Of course, not everybody is interested in researching mysticism or

the 'explanation of everything' given by mystics. However, as Ayn

Rand demonstrates so admirably, without some appropriate research one

is unlikely to form a sensible view of it. "

 

this is the whole version posted by Canute

 

www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-86086.html

 

 

- Cleverly copy and pasted as usual tho. Grow up lttl mn, you know

you should name sources if want to be 'clever'.

Unfortunately your 'genius' doesn't go further than throwing shit

when things go rough.

 

Be Happy Bbbrt, Be Happy.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

> > > >

> > > > but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

> > > > practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

> > > >

> > > > this is not something to do with the epistemology of mysticism

> but

> > > > rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is said

> by

> > > > mystics to be 'nondual'.

> > > >

> > > > this is not a philosophical position but just the way things

> are .

> > > >

> > > > the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum

> mechanics,

> >

> > > > where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is

> suspended.

> > > >

> > > > even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it,

> to

> > > > solve the background dependence problem, applying what they

> call the

> > > > 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of

> > > nonduality.

> > > >

> > > > " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

> > > >

> > > > ask yourself how you know the things that you really know, and

> which

> > > > you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll find

> that

> > > > reasoning is not the way you do it.

> > > >

> > > > this relates to what you say about identity, in that certain

> > > knowledge

> > > > cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity.

> > > >

> > > > thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical with

> its

> > > > object. knowledge that is identical with its object must

> > > be 'mystical'

> > > > knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

> > > >

> > > > hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

> > > >

> > > > all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

> > > >

> > > > of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

> > > > 'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

> > > >

> > > > ultimately no one has any choice.

> > > >

> > > > and who could care less.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I know you're trying, but excuse me lttl mn, who's listening to

> the

> > > name Canute?

> > >

> > > Be Happy Bbbrt.

> >

> >

> >

> > ..i think canute has some insight. don't you?

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> For those interested, here's the full story.

>

> " It is advisable to find out what mysticism is before forming an

> opinions on it. It isn't rocket science after all. I'm sure, WA

> Dunkley, that you wouldn't think of commenting on physics without

> some knowledge of it. Why then do this for mysticism? Presumably the

> same lack of rigour that allows Ayn Rand to write such rubbish about

> it. You don't even even define it as a mystic would, or even as the

> dictionary does.

> We cannot just ignore the important point made by Max 1975 about the

> limits of reason as a means of acquiring knowledge, nor the point

> made by someone else that the unfalsifiabilty of solipsism entails

> that knowledge gained by perception can never be certain knowledge.

> These issue are more subtle than you allow, and if you investigate

> them you'll find that mysticism cannot be dismissed as a means of

> acquiring knowldge on grounds of reason. By contrast, analytical

> reasoning of the kind used by Ayn Rand can be dismissed quite easily

> as no more than guesswork, the derivation of uncertain and relative

> truths and falsities from uncertain axioms.

>

> You like the following part, didn't you Bbbrt?

>

> - Yes, there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions. But

> this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical practice

> leads one, taken to its conclusion. This is not something to do with

> the epistemology of mysticism but rather is has to do with the

> ontology of reality, which is said by mystics to be 'nondual'. This

> is not a philosophical position but just the way things are (they

> say). We see the same " embracing of contradiction " in QM, where

> the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended. Even

> quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to solve

> the background dependence problem, applying what they call

> the 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of

> nonduality.

> The comment that " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect,

> as Les Sleeth observes. Ask yourself how you know the things that you

> really know, and which you know you know, absolutely and for certain,

> and you'll find that reasoning is not the way you do it. This relates

> to what you say about identity, in that certain knowledge cannot be

> acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity. Thus Aristotle's

> comment that true knowledge is identical with its object. Knowledge

> that is identical with its object must be 'mystical' knowledge, since

> it is knowledge of what one is. (Hence Descarte's 'cogito'). All

> other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

> Of course, not everybody is interested in researching mysticism or

> the 'explanation of everything' given by mystics. However, as Ayn

> Rand demonstrates so admirably, without some appropriate research one

> is unlikely to form a sensible view of it. "

>

> this is the whole version posted by Canute

>

> www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-86086.html

>

>

> - Cleverly copy and pasted as usual tho. Grow up lttl mn, you know

> you should name sources if want to be 'clever'.

> Unfortunately your 'genius' doesn't go further than throwing shit

> when things go rough.

>

> Be Happy Bbbrt, Be Happy.

 

 

 

 

:-)

 

 

very nice melvin...now guess who is canute?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn "

<mstrdmmlbrn@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

> > > > >

> > > > > but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where

mystical

> > > > > practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > this is not something to do with the epistemology of

mysticism

> > but

> > > > > rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is

said

> > by

> > > > > mystics to be 'nondual'.

> > > > >

> > > > > this is not a philosophical position but just the way

things

> > are .

> > > > >

> > > > > the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum

> > mechanics,

> > >

> > > > > where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is

> > suspended.

> > > > >

> > > > > even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend

it,

> > to

> > > > > solve the background dependence problem, applying what they

> > call the

> > > > > 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact

of

> > > > nonduality.

> > > > >

> > > > > " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

> > > > >

> > > > > ask yourself how you know the things that you really know,

and

> > which

> > > > > you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll

find

> > that

> > > > > reasoning is not the way you do it.

> > > > >

> > > > > this relates to what you say about identity, in that

certain

> > > > knowledge

> > > > > cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by

identity.

> > > > >

> > > > > thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical

with

> > its

> > > > > object. knowledge that is identical with its object must

> > > > be 'mystical'

> > > > > knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

> > > > >

> > > > > hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

> > > > >

> > > > > all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be

uncertain.

> > > > >

> > > > > of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

> > > > > 'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

> > > > >

> > > > > ultimately no one has any choice.

> > > > >

> > > > > and who could care less.

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I know you're trying, but excuse me lttl mn, who's listening

to

> > the

> > > > name Canute?

> > > >

> > > > Be Happy Bbbrt.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ..i think canute has some insight. don't you?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > For those interested, here's the full story.

> >

> > " It is advisable to find out what mysticism is before forming an

> > opinions on it. It isn't rocket science after all. I'm sure, WA

> > Dunkley, that you wouldn't think of commenting on physics without

> > some knowledge of it. Why then do this for mysticism? Presumably

the

> > same lack of rigour that allows Ayn Rand to write such rubbish

about

> > it. You don't even even define it as a mystic would, or even as

the

> > dictionary does.

> > We cannot just ignore the important point made by Max 1975 about

the

> > limits of reason as a means of acquiring knowledge, nor the point

> > made by someone else that the unfalsifiabilty of solipsism

entails

> > that knowledge gained by perception can never be certain

knowledge.

> > These issue are more subtle than you allow, and if you

investigate

> > them you'll find that mysticism cannot be dismissed as a means of

> > acquiring knowldge on grounds of reason. By contrast, analytical

> > reasoning of the kind used by Ayn Rand can be dismissed quite

easily

> > as no more than guesswork, the derivation of uncertain and

relative

> > truths and falsities from uncertain axioms.

> >

> > You like the following part, didn't you Bbbrt?

> >

> > - Yes, there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

But

> > this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

practice

> > leads one, taken to its conclusion. This is not something to do

with

> > the epistemology of mysticism but rather is has to do with the

> > ontology of reality, which is said by mystics to be 'nondual'.

This

> > is not a philosophical position but just the way things are (they

> > say). We see the same " embracing of contradiction " in QM, where

> > the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended. Even

> > quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to

solve

> > the background dependence problem, applying what they call

> > the 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact

of

> > nonduality.

> > The comment that " reason subsumes all human faculties " is

incorrect,

> > as Les Sleeth observes. Ask yourself how you know the things that

you

> > really know, and which you know you know, absolutely and for

certain,

> > and you'll find that reasoning is not the way you do it. This

relates

> > to what you say about identity, in that certain knowledge cannot

be

> > acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity. Thus

Aristotle's

> > comment that true knowledge is identical with its object.

Knowledge

> > that is identical with its object must be 'mystical' knowledge,

since

> > it is knowledge of what one is. (Hence Descarte's 'cogito'). All

> > other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

> > Of course, not everybody is interested in researching mysticism

or

> > the 'explanation of everything' given by mystics. However, as Ayn

> > Rand demonstrates so admirably, without some appropriate research

one

> > is unlikely to form a sensible view of it. "

> >

> > this is the whole version posted by Canute

> >

> > www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-86086.html

> >

> >

> > - Cleverly copy and pasted as usual tho. Grow up lttl mn, you

know

> > you should name sources if want to be 'clever'.

> > Unfortunately your 'genius' doesn't go further than throwing shit

> > when things go rough.

> >

> > Be Happy Bbbrt, Be Happy.

>

>

>

>

> :-)

>

>

> very nice melvin...now guess who is canute?

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

I haven't got a clue, but since you insist.

 

If I didn¡¦t know better I'd say Canute is the great King of England,

Denmark and Norway, but I believe he¡¦s busy doing other things at

the moment. So its got to be some psychopathological mortal trying to

lift himself above the average, severely suffering from megalomania

by using the name Canut.

 

Keep up to it...........boy!

 

Sukhi Ho Lttl Mn, Sukhi Ho. )))))))))))

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn "

> <mstrdmmlbrn@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where

> mystical

> > > > > > practice leads one, taken to its conclusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > this is not something to do with the epistemology of

> mysticism

> > > but

> > > > > > rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is

> said

> > > by

> > > > > > mystics to be 'nondual'.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > this is not a philosophical position but just the way

> things

> > > are .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the same " embracing of contradiction " is found in quantum

> > > mechanics,

> > > >

> > > > > > where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is

> > > suspended.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend

> it,

> > > to

> > > > > > solve the background dependence problem, applying what they

> > > call the

> > > > > > 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact

> of

> > > > > nonduality.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " reason subsumes all human faculties " is incorrect.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ask yourself how you know the things that you really know,

> and

> > > which

> > > > > > you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll

> find

> > > that

> > > > > > reasoning is not the way you do it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > this relates to what you say about identity, in that

> certain

> > > > > knowledge

> > > > > > cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by

> identity.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical

> with

> > > its

> > > > > > object. knowledge that is identical with its object must

> > > > > be 'mystical'

> > > > > > knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > hence Descarte's 'cogito'.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > all other knowledge can very easily be shown to be

> uncertain.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > of course, not everybody is interested in mysticism or the

> > > > > > 'explanation of everything' given by mystics.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ultimately no one has any choice.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > and who could care less.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I know you're trying, but excuse me lttl mn, who's listening

> to

> > > the

> > > > > name Canute?

> > > > >

> > > > > Be Happy Bbbrt.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ..i think canute has some insight. don't you?

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > >

> > > For those interested, here's the full story.

> > >

> > > " It is advisable to find out what mysticism is before forming an

> > > opinions on it. It isn't rocket science after all. I'm sure, WA

> > > Dunkley, that you wouldn't think of commenting on physics without

> > > some knowledge of it. Why then do this for mysticism? Presumably

> the

> > > same lack of rigour that allows Ayn Rand to write such rubbish

> about

> > > it. You don't even even define it as a mystic would, or even as

> the

> > > dictionary does.

> > > We cannot just ignore the important point made by Max 1975 about

> the

> > > limits of reason as a means of acquiring knowledge, nor the point

> > > made by someone else that the unfalsifiabilty of solipsism

> entails

> > > that knowledge gained by perception can never be certain

> knowledge.

> > > These issue are more subtle than you allow, and if you

> investigate

> > > them you'll find that mysticism cannot be dismissed as a means of

> > > acquiring knowldge on grounds of reason. By contrast, analytical

> > > reasoning of the kind used by Ayn Rand can be dismissed quite

> easily

> > > as no more than guesswork, the derivation of uncertain and

> relative

> > > truths and falsities from uncertain axioms.

> > >

> > > You like the following part, didn't you Bbbrt?

> > >

> > > - Yes, there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions.

> But

> > > this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical

> practice

> > > leads one, taken to its conclusion. This is not something to do

> with

> > > the epistemology of mysticism but rather is has to do with the

> > > ontology of reality, which is said by mystics to be 'nondual'.

> This

> > > is not a philosophical position but just the way things are (they

> > > say). We see the same " embracing of contradiction " in QM, where

> > > the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended. Even

> > > quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to

> solve

> > > the background dependence problem, applying what they call

> > > the 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact

> of

> > > nonduality.

> > > The comment that " reason subsumes all human faculties " is

> incorrect,

> > > as Les Sleeth observes. Ask yourself how you know the things that

> you

> > > really know, and which you know you know, absolutely and for

> certain,

> > > and you'll find that reasoning is not the way you do it. This

> relates

> > > to what you say about identity, in that certain knowledge cannot

> be

> > > acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity. Thus

> Aristotle's

> > > comment that true knowledge is identical with its object.

> Knowledge

> > > that is identical with its object must be 'mystical' knowledge,

> since

> > > it is knowledge of what one is. (Hence Descarte's 'cogito'). All

> > > other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

> > > Of course, not everybody is interested in researching mysticism

> or

> > > the 'explanation of everything' given by mystics. However, as Ayn

> > > Rand demonstrates so admirably, without some appropriate research

> one

> > > is unlikely to form a sensible view of it. "

> > >

> > > this is the whole version posted by Canute

> > >

> > > www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-86086.html

> > >

> > >

> > > - Cleverly copy and pasted as usual tho. Grow up lttl mn, you

> know

> > > you should name sources if want to be 'clever'.

> > > Unfortunately your 'genius' doesn't go further than throwing shit

> > > when things go rough.

> > >

> > > Be Happy Bbbrt, Be Happy.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > :-)

> >

> >

> > very nice melvin...now guess who is canute?

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> I haven't got a clue, but since you insist.

>

> If I didn¡¦t know better I'd say Canute is the great King of England,

> Denmark and Norway, but I believe he¡¦s busy doing other things at

> the moment. So its got to be some psychopathological mortal trying to

> lift himself above the average, severely suffering from megalomania

> by using the name Canut.

>

> Keep up to it...........boy!

>

> Sukhi Ho Lttl Mn, Sukhi Ho. )))))))))))

 

 

 

:-)

 

charmer.

 

..b b.b.