About the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind
- Thread starter henry
- Start date
Buddy said:
Well, Palinarus & Buddy, I'll have to ponder your input for a while. Are you both considering to fine tune the couple of sentences I brought as a matter of discussion so to eventually have them replaced in the Declaration?
Present text: "At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be ascertained. These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."
Palinarus' version reads -imho- clearer:
"At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated, with varying degrees of certainty. These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not outright quantifiable."
Palinurus
The Living Force
Hi ROEL,
It's not for me to decide whether or not the actual text of the Declaration should be amended with the wordings I gave you in an effort to resolve the cognitive dissonance you reported sensing, with which I agreed upon. I have no objections to it, though. My text can be used if deemed necessary. It all depends, imo, on what others think may be the best fitting solution in this particular case, IF they agree that your objection to the text as it stands has enough merit to justify the change proposed. I don't know about that at the moment. So we'll see...
In the meantime, take all the pondering you need about the rest of the remarks. Nobody is pushing.
It's not for me to decide whether or not the actual text of the Declaration should be amended with the wordings I gave you in an effort to resolve the cognitive dissonance you reported sensing, with which I agreed upon. I have no objections to it, though. My text can be used if deemed necessary. It all depends, imo, on what others think may be the best fitting solution in this particular case, IF they agree that your objection to the text as it stands has enough merit to justify the change proposed. I don't know about that at the moment. So we'll see...
In the meantime, take all the pondering you need about the rest of the remarks. Nobody is pushing.
Buddy said:
Can I suggest the following?:
Present text: "At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be ascertained. These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."
Since we seem to agree that 'ascertained' and 'not quantifiable' are in conflict, I propose that the text be changed to:
"At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated. These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."
This is then a condensed version of the clarification that Palinarus offered me, and would remove the conflict.
Buddy
The Living Force
ROEL said:
Well, that depends, I guess. Does it satisfy you? Could you explain it to a newbie? How about a clever newbie who comes aboard to ask how it is we know that classical cause-effect is bogus, and black and white thinking is on a spectrum from not-so-very-helpful to full-blown pathological, yet we use what may appear to be classical probability theory in the Principles? :)
I think that wording will fit the bill. Since I feel certain of the intention here, the grammar doesn't matter to me. But that's just me.
Besides, most of us prolly know or are learning that reality is quantum and all about change. We can answer clever newbie that we know reality can also be viewed classically as well. Probability theory works as long as the domain in which it is applied is relatively stable, has been relatively stable for a while and looks like it will remain relatively stable in the near future.
Problems come in when we forget that quantum uncertainty applies at all scales, from the microscopic to the macroscopic (else, what do we think macroscopic is composed of?). From our perspective, sometimes it just seems to take awhile for changes bubbling, spinning or wobbling up from microscopic levels to begin to manifest macroscopically to 'shake everything up'.
As just one example, if the above were not the case, David Li's probability calculations might have held forever and we could all get rich on derivatives.
See:
Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street, By Felix Salmon
_http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=1
Also, at Wikipedia:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_X._Li
David X. Li is a strict, classical, dumbass bivalent-(non)thinking idjit, IMHO.
Also, on a related note for an interested reader, Laura does a treatment of Nonlinear Dynamics of Love and Complex Systems here.
----------------------------
Edit:spelling, additions
Buddy said:
I'm not quite sure how I would reply, in the same way that I would have difficulty explaining "Consciousness is the driving force of Creation, Truth is it objective." Just because it sounds "right" it does not mean that it IS SO.
In previous posts in this same thread, I got across a couple of suggestions, and they got passed on and as a consequence a tweak or two were made to the Declaration.
Cheers.
Buddy
The Living Force
[quote author=ROEL]
I'm not quite sure how I would reply...[/quote]
In case it's interesting, my reply would likely be similar to the explanation already offered and I'd gladly go into detail as asked.
[quote author=ROEL]
...in the same way that I would have difficulty explaining "Consciousness is the driving force of Creation...[/quote]
To me, that translates like: irresistible, unstoppable forces as impetus for changings toward better assume and require existence of individual and group awareness in order to make the choosings that add value. Consciousness being fully integrated into reality, locates it at all 'wheres', so it's just as much a driving force as a receiver of results via feedback loops, OSIT.
I'm beginning to suspect that, from a human perspective, real truths have some kind of reciprocal nature like this description might be suggesting.
If we could get folks, in general, to stop thinking of their 'self' in the singular tense (person, name, etc), and experience, for just a moment, that they are a living network just like this one--a kind of being representing multiple kinds and sizes of collectives of other beings (from cells, cell groups, organs, tissues, aggregates and systems all communicating in cooperation), at once--(and that's just the body physical) then they may find it easier to understand many other things as well. Like a need to improve an understanding of 'human identity' and the default condition of "many wills" what need to be fused into a singular one, etc. OSIT. Ain't no hermeticist got nuttin' on us.
[quote author=ROEL]
Truth is it objective[/quote]
Did you mean 'Truth is objective'?
Maybe whatever exists simply exists regardless of, and despite, what we may think about it.
[quote author=ROEL]
In previous posts in this same thread, I got across a couple of suggestions, and they got passed on and as a consequence a tweak or two were made to the Declaration.[/quote]
You got qua! Reality has the most, of course. :)
[quote author=ROEL]
Cheers.[/quote]
Sorry, I don't drink. :)
Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully this info will be useful to future members if no one else.
~Added later: FWIW, I wasn't trying to change your mind about your suggestions. I was thinking our mutual interest in the subject might lead to even better improvements to that wording (assuming such were possible) via discussion of the subject to improve our understanding.
I'm not quite sure how I would reply...[/quote]
In case it's interesting, my reply would likely be similar to the explanation already offered and I'd gladly go into detail as asked.
[quote author=ROEL]
...in the same way that I would have difficulty explaining "Consciousness is the driving force of Creation...[/quote]
To me, that translates like: irresistible, unstoppable forces as impetus for changings toward better assume and require existence of individual and group awareness in order to make the choosings that add value. Consciousness being fully integrated into reality, locates it at all 'wheres', so it's just as much a driving force as a receiver of results via feedback loops, OSIT.
I'm beginning to suspect that, from a human perspective, real truths have some kind of reciprocal nature like this description might be suggesting.
If we could get folks, in general, to stop thinking of their 'self' in the singular tense (person, name, etc), and experience, for just a moment, that they are a living network just like this one--a kind of being representing multiple kinds and sizes of collectives of other beings (from cells, cell groups, organs, tissues, aggregates and systems all communicating in cooperation), at once--(and that's just the body physical) then they may find it easier to understand many other things as well. Like a need to improve an understanding of 'human identity' and the default condition of "many wills" what need to be fused into a singular one, etc. OSIT. Ain't no hermeticist got nuttin' on us.
[quote author=ROEL]
Truth is it objective[/quote]
Did you mean 'Truth is objective'?
Maybe whatever exists simply exists regardless of, and despite, what we may think about it.
[quote author=ROEL]
In previous posts in this same thread, I got across a couple of suggestions, and they got passed on and as a consequence a tweak or two were made to the Declaration.[/quote]
You got qua! Reality has the most, of course. :)
[quote author=ROEL]
Cheers.[/quote]
Sorry, I don't drink. :)
Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully this info will be useful to future members if no one else.
~Added later: FWIW, I wasn't trying to change your mind about your suggestions. I was thinking our mutual interest in the subject might lead to even better improvements to that wording (assuming such were possible) via discussion of the subject to improve our understanding.
Buddy said:
Did you mean 'Truth is objective'?
Maybe whatever exists simply exists regardless of, and despite, what we may think about it.
[/quote]
I didn't mean anything. I was using this as an example of something I would have difficulty in explaining: "Consciousness is the driving force of Creation, Truth is it objective." which comes directly from the Declaration, and it is -to me- a very powerful statement that needs to be lived in order to understand it. Only then I would -maybe- be able to explain it to somebody else. Until then, it is just (good) theory to me.
Thank you Buddy for investing so much time to reply to my posts. :)
Palinurus said:
My transcription mistake. It does say "its" (Third sentence after the title "Abstract"). That is what happens when it is late and I am tired.
Anyway, leaving aside the spelling matter, I was only saying all along that this sentence would be hard for me to explain to a third party, being that I think it is -for now- not a fact but a hypothesis with a strong likelihood of being correct.
I got a question! i'm curious about the meaning of the emblem of the FOTCM that i see above of the avatar of some members.. i joined the FOTCM like a year ago.. that logo means that your are a member? i think i don't have it.. or am i missing something? i realized about that today... sorry for ask this i'm confused!
TheLostBoy
Jedi
I'm not sure if having the symbol above your avatar denotes any certain status such as moderator, but I am pretty sure it is based on a crop circle. I can't remember if it is the one at Avesbury or Stonehenge (I *think* the one at SH), but here are links to both:
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2008/may.shtml
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2010/may.shtml
As for any meaning behind the symbol and/or crop circle pattern itself, I really don't have any clue, though I haven't asked or looked into it. I'm sure someone else can further elaborate for you (and correct me if I'm wrong). Hope this helps!
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2008/may.shtml
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2010/may.shtml
As for any meaning behind the symbol and/or crop circle pattern itself, I really don't have any clue, though I haven't asked or looked into it. I'm sure someone else can further elaborate for you (and correct me if I'm wrong). Hope this helps!
G
Gertrudes
Guest
irjO said:
Yes, as far as I'm aware the logo means that you are a member.
TheLostBoy said:
The symbol and its very creation are discussed in the C's session from October the 24th 2009, when the fellowship was first mentioned. It is a longer thread, when compared with other session's threads, where many aspects of the fellowship were discussed, including the creation of the logo. This starts approximately here and extends itself for a couple of pages.
It is an interesting read as it lays out how the concept of the symbol developed, as well as the foundational ideas for the fellowship itself.
