The Guardian for this meeting was Paradise Tennant. The comments are by Paradise, Hokon, Roger, Archmage, Lucinda, and harmoniasophia

Hokon Cazalet: hi roger =)
Roger Ormenthal: Hi there.
--BELL--
Roger Ormenthal: Read your profile, and all I can say, is YES pizza.
Hokon Cazalet: hehe =)
Hokon Cazalet: was reading yours as well
Hokon Cazalet: pizza is the staff of life
Roger Ormenthal: I guess we're not in an official session yet so we're not doing the bell thing?
Hokon Cazalet: it is one, but it seems only we have shown up
Roger Ormenthal: Are most phenomenologists atheists/agnostics/humanists? Or do I have that completely wrong.
Hokon Cazalet: dunno, no not all; while it seems most phenomenologists are agnostic to some degree, not all are humanists (Heidegger was an atheist but was against humanism)
Roger Ormenthal: I see, thanks.
Hokon Cazalet: Husserl seemed to believe in God, not sure though, if he was a theist or simply thought God was the supreme ideal of reason, but vacuous
Hokon Cazalet: the passage i get that from is ambiguous
Roger Ormenthal: I find that a lot of atheists are turned off by the dogma of religion, and have trouble separating that from the idea of some sort of supreme universal intelligence, to which they may not be entirely opposed.
Hokon Cazalet: ive noticed some are as well; you’ll find though im not one of them =)
Hokon Cazalet is atheist-agnostic
Roger Ormenthal: You are saying you are in the atheist-agnostic category?
Hokon Cazalet: yes i am, but i dont have a negative view of religion, i see it as a healthy quality of society
Hokon Cazalet: hi paradise =)
Paradise Tennant: hiya hokon roger ..my apologies for being late :)
Roger Ormenthal: Atheism and agnosticism are pretty wide apart, one has certainty, one still entertains possibilities.
Hokon Cazalet: hehe im late also :Þ
Roger Ormenthal: Hi Paradise.
Hokon Cazalet: im atheist as i dont believe, but im agnostic as i dont know if god exists or not
Hokon Cazalet: so im an agnostic/atheist (one can be a theist but be agnostic, say Kierkegaard)
Roger Ormenthal: God can mean many things, from a being requesting worship, to a principle of universal intelligence and creativity built into the fabric of existence.
Hokon Cazalet: yup
Hokon Cazalet: thats why I’ll never be a strict or strong atheist, i cant disprove every single conception of God, the qword is too ambiguous
Paradise Tennant: smiles
Roger Ormenthal: I am more accepting of the latter concept.
Hokon Cazalet: but i dont see a reason to believe, thus im atheist; but agnostic (skeptical atheist, i simply suspend belief due to lack of reason/evidence/need)
Hokon Cazalet: i have been theist before =)
Hokon Cazalet: gone back and forth
Hokon Cazalet: im actually a bit annoyed with folks like dawkins, he makes atheists/agnostics look bad imo
Hokon Cazalet: phenomenology though is neither atheist or theist essentially, as that issue is "bracketed" along with all other issues of what exists "out there"
--BELL--
Hokon Cazalet: (Husserl’s version anyways)
Paradise Tennant: smiles good old Husserl :)
Hokon Cazalet: hehe
Hokon Cazalet: Heidegger though was very atheist, he thought the concept of God obscured and covers up Being with a being
Hokon Cazalet: im not a big fan of Heidegger personally =)
Roger Ormenthal: It seems that even if one dismisses any inherent guiding intelligence to the universe, and theorize that all we see is the result of random events coalescing over time, that one must still admit the universe's preference for hierarchical order, versus chaos.
Hokon Cazalet: =)
Paradise Tennant: hmm roger there are physicists who would argue it tends to chaos and I believe them in a way
Paradise Tennant: looking at the bottom of my purse always makes me think of the universe’s tendency is to chaos :)
Hokon Cazalet: mechanically, the universe is "winding down", but that could be explained away as being we are becoming more distant from the Creative Event - the intelligence made the universe and walked away (Deism)
Roger Ormenthal: They also speak of entropy prevailing, and the universe "running down" but life seems to be an exception, concentrating negative entropy. There are those who argue that the application of thermodynamic principles to life is not a valid practice.
Hokon Cazalet: life takes energy from outside sources; its only a local phenomena, overall, it is still winding down
Hokon Cazalet: outside source - the sun
Hokon Cazalet: if there is a designer, he doesn’t seem to have put any purpose into nature (the notion of explaining things by their purposes - telos - was rejected along with many other things in Aristotelian physics; and science works fine explaining the nature of things without it) - doesn’t mean there isn’t an intelligence though . . .
Hokon Cazalet: but if this intelligence exists, its not a personal God like Christianity or Judaism
Paradise Tennant: makes me think of dream architecture there is method .. purpose .. a rational to things .. but somehow does not all hinge together
Hokon Cazalet: =)
Paradise Tennant: what do you think it is hokon :)
Hokon Cazalet: to our world? i dunno
Hokon Cazalet: it seems experience is inadequate to answer these riddles, yet pure reason is empty by itself . . . if only there was a third option . . .
Roger Ormenthal: Re winding down, and local phenomena, I have trouble with that. Intelligence has the capacity to create negative entropy. As the universe develops, a higher order of intelligence may be operative that overcomes the purely thermodynamic running down entropy. Also, unified field physics speaks of at least eleven dimensions, and we hardly understand what that means yet. Also, in M-theory, there may be multitudes of universes. it's all so vast, that it may be premature to analyze total order/disorder of the universe / multiverse using 18th century thermodynamic concepts.
Hokon Cazalet: string theory is untestable at this time, and there’s no basis to think the laws of thermodynamics are false, if they are (which is possible), most of physics would need to be re-written - such a radical change would have far reaching consequences
Paradise Tennant: yes ..like being dogs and trying to do homework for a quantum physics class better maybe to eat it and just wag our tails J
Hokon Cazalet: hehe paradise
--BELL--
Hokon Cazalet: so its possible they have some exception, no empirically based law is absolute
Hokon Cazalet: i wouldn’t quote string theory though, no evidence exists to support it, and none may ever appear - some are even calling it a pseudoscience (i think thats harsh tbh); in any case, i wouldn’t pin too much on an untestable hypothesis [plus one can argue the laws of thermodynamics have an exception without all that =)]
Roger Ormenthal: We used incorrect Newtonian physics for a long time, and developed a lot of useful technology with it. And yet it came to be known as a subset of relativistic physics, which addresses a more comprehensive realm of size and speed. I personally believe that this will be surpassed with a yet more comprehensive physics, perhaps a number of times over the ages, where yes, our basic concepts will be challenged and overturned, as partial understandings applicable to limited speeds/sizes/dimensions, and who knows what other parameters.
Hokon Cazalet: that id agree with
Hokon Cazalet: Einstein showed quite definitively, the natural sciences will never be absolute or complete
Roger Ormenthal: I am not sure that a truly random universe could have come up with pizza.
Hokon Cazalet: (David Hume was right, and Kant was wrong lol)
Roger Ormenthal: And there is Godel's mathematical "incompleteness theorem", where it is shown that a system can never adequately fully describe itself.
Hokon Cazalet: um thats limited to strictly formal systems
Hokon Cazalet: what it shows is no sufficiently complex/rich formal system can be complete and consistent; Godel came up with that as a way to prove mathematics was more than playing games with symbols
Hokon Cazalet: and it worked, Gödel proved logicism about math was wrong
Roger Ormenthal: True. Are we not, in mechanistic view of the universe, describable mathematically, trying to define the universe within the context of a formal system?
Paradise Tennant: smiles like the idea of being incomplete :) means there is space to grow :)
Hokon Cazalet: formal system means a strictly logical system, with no experiential content
Hokon Cazalet: things are true by virtue of the meanings of the terms - basis of truth in formal sentences
Hokon Cazalet: like "all bachelors are unmarried men", that sorta thing
Roger Ormenthal: I understand the definition, but it is odd that human experiences create formal systems with no experiential content.
Hokon Cazalet: it is, its an odd enigma
Hokon Cazalet: one nobody has solved definitively yet =)
Hokon Cazalet: (as far as i know)
Paradise Tennant: smiles .. we are touching on so many big ideas and questions I am going to have to call this session "?"
Hokon Cazalet: lol
Hokon Cazalet: hehe likes Plato’s dialogues, starts a book off talking about justice, book ends discussing the soul lol
Paradise Tennant: hiya arch
Hokon Cazalet: hellos
Archmage Atlantis: Call the session, Paradise..........
Paradise Tennant: yes ideas arch into each other in the most amazing ways - pardon the pun :)
Hokon Cazalet: hehe
Archmage Atlantis: I Was Sent Here
Roger Ormenthal: Do you discount any validity to subjectively derived information/knowledge, that seems to transcend a system? I am reminded of Einstein's thought experiments, where he imagined "riding on a photon" to gain insight that led to special relativity. Modern science may be short changing itself in insisting purely on objective mechanism of gaining/validating knowledge. The ancient (and modern) mystics might have something useful to add.
Hokon Cazalet: well for me personally? no i dont believe the natural sciences are the only path to truth; while i dont believe in mysticism anymore, i do think there are avenues beyond the experimental sciences
Archmage Atlantis: I am of the belief that I am shaman........I have no proof of that
Paradise Tennant: now .." riding on a photon " smiles that is a good title :) and imagination is really a doorway to understanding because I believe our thoughts influence matter in a way .. that is ...
Hokon Cazalet: (not all agnostics or atheists believe in scientism - all true knowledge is from the natural sciences; i myself find the concept of scientism absurd)
--BELL--
Archmage Atlantis: I apologize to Pema, ....., we have a planet to save
Hokon Cazalet: to add to my comment, i think the goal of objectivity has serious problems, however useful it may be
Archmage Atlantis: Agree Hokon
Hokon Cazalet: actually ive become a bit agnostic about the truth-value of natural sciences, ive found serious problems underlying the objectivity of the sciences, and in several years, haven’t found a good solution to them; i see the natural sciences of today as useful, maybe true, but "i don’t know"
Roger Ormenthal: Here is how I view "mysticism": IF - the physical theories of a multidimensional universe are true, and IF as humans, we have functional components/(bodies) on some of these other levels, interfaced together that give rise to our overall functionality (which helps explain such phenomena like reports of "out-of-body" experiences, then we (and the "mystics") may have built-in mechanisms (meditation, self-reflection, etc.) that allow access to these other-dimensional aspects, which may afford direct perception of deeper aspects of physical reality. In that way, such "subjective" experience may afford access to knowledge not accessible to current technology. Not too that such subjective exploration need not necessarily be coupled to religious concepts, dogmas, or systems.
Hokon Cazalet: ok, while I’ll disagree with the way some things are characterized there, i do understand what your saying
Roger Ormenthal: (Note too...)
Archmage Atlantis: My Jewish gene ...it says "oy vey".....my celtic genome says.... " keep moving forward, in spite of the nomes"
Hokon Cazalet: i dont think it'd lead to mysticism being viable though, just means we have sense-organs that aren’t very well developed\
Hokon Cazalet: hehe
Hokon Cazalet: btw the way scientists use the word dimension is very geometric, nothing spiritual about their use of that word
Roger Ormenthal: Hokon, What made you conclude that mysticism was not a valid means of knowledge acquisition?
Hokon Cazalet: not saying their use is the only valid use
Hokon Cazalet: just analysis of experiences, it seems to me what we call mystical or intuitional insight is really just rapid inferences that we dont see
Archmage Atlantis: i intended to be a mathematician....life intervened
Roger Ormenthal: I agree that the scientists are using dimension mathematically, and not "realms" of alternative existence. If such other realms do exist, there may be a functional relationship.
Hokon Cazalet: now granted, i haven’t experienced the totality of mystical experiences, but ive had a few and ive found them to be the products of phantasy or rapid inferences (this is actually a problem for reason too however strange that may sound)
Hokon Cazalet: the fact that mystical experiences tend to be followed with vague and ambiguous phrases like "all is one" all is love, etc; tells me the mind is being overloaded
Archmage Atlantis: That we do not know things? .....is that a reason?
Hokon Cazalet: ?
Roger Ormenthal: I can't argue with your sense of "mystical" functionality. I guess our personal experience plus the varied material we are exposed to color our individual sense. I put my worldview together like a jigsaw puzzle, and have unused pieces that are tentative. My puzzle is always subject to correction and I encounter and consider new material.
Hokon Cazalet: mine is subject to correction also, ive changed my views many times, im currently undergoing a radical change atm; gonna actually reject phenomenology =P
Archmage Atlantis: Apply the true meaning of science.......to capture data, .....apply hypothesis.....test.....then apply science
Roger Ormenthal: Hokon, may I comment on your "all is one" comment re the mide being overloaded?
Hokon Cazalet: sure
Roger Ormenthal: (mind)
Hokon Cazalet: =)
Paradise Tennant: like trying to write your name on a wall with a crayon .. while riding a bike .. pretty much an excellent metaphor for trying to think true :)
--BELL--
Hokon Cazalet: hehe paradise =)
Archmage Atlantis: I look forward to reading this log......Blessings and Namaste
Hokon Cazalet: bye byes =)
Paradise Tennant: smiles Namaste arch :)
Roger Ormenthal: All investigations of matter reveal a hierarchy of particles, where each particle, on close examination, has no clear boundary and resolves to a set of sub-particles - atoms to nucleus and electrons, nucleus to protons and neutrons, protons and neutrons to quarks, etc. And each particle is not a hard ball, but an "event" a kind of 3D geometric standing wave. But all these waves, are waves of the same underlying field, like individual waves on an ocean. This "ocean" may be called the vacuum field, or space-time, or whatever. My point being that the hierarchy of particle wave are vibrations of the same underlying medium. And from that perspective, the "all is one: subjective report, may be a subjective reflection on this underlying architecture, and have real meaning in physical organization of matter and space-time, beyond merely a subjective new-agey personal experience.
Paradise Tennant: smiles at both hokon and roger .. very sure they could both write their names on a wall whilst riding a bike :)
Hokon Cazalet: um thats a very superficial relationship to what’s said in physics (quantum physics states everything comes in packets or quanta, indivisible units); buts lets say your right for a moment that physics did support this view . . . it was experience and reason that found it, mysticism just happened to say the same thing, but could never demonstrate it beyond vague terms
Paradise Tennant: errr but maybe at least 4,000 years earlier :)
Hokon Cazalet: electrons can occupy only specific ranges around a nucleus,
Hokon Cazalet: anyone can make a guess, eventually some end up being right by accident
Hokon Cazalet: and nature isn’t a massive standing wave, that website spaceandmotion.com is not a reliable website
Paradise Tennant: smiles yes they can Hokon .. but a really good guess :) is a often like picking up a radio signal from the whosit or the whatsit :)
Hokon Cazalet: sure you could view the world as a single wave-function equation, i think thats doable, but it doesn’t mean we are all one undifferentiated mass
Hokon Cazalet: plus wave-function equations are models to predict phenomena, not the phenomena themselves
Hokon Cazalet: hehe its possible paradise =)
Hokon Cazalet: but in this case i doubt it, the human brain and sense organs cant detect these quantum phenomena
Hokon Cazalet: its really hard to even detect the vacuum energy
Paradise Tennant: but your heart can
Paradise Tennant: in a way ;)
Hokon Cazalet: feelings i dont think are a path to knowledge in themselves, they are actually a product of rapid judgments and reasoning
Hokon Cazalet: they are something constituted in the mind already once we've felt them
Hokon Cazalet: not saying feelings are bad or even wrong =) but they aren’t infallible or magical
Paradise Tennant: you know we are all connected in a way .. that is not empirical .. not emotion .. not objectively experiential . more like sensory ..maybe .. even sub sensory:)
Hokon Cazalet: (i think thats actually one huge problem in western culture, this dualism between irrationalism vs rationalism)
Hokon Cazalet: not sure what you mean but . . . i got an idea =)
Hokon Cazalet: from heidegger lol
Paradise Tennant: smiles
Paradise Tennant: there is a resonance :) sometimes
Hokon Cazalet: when we encounter objects in the world, in the normal mode of Being-in-the-world, we pick them up as tools, ready-to-hand, to live-through them; so what occurs when we pick up a tool? we already have a pre-judgment of things prior to experiencing them, they are already part of Being-in-the-world, and we pick them up (re-cognize them) AS ready-to-hand
Paradise Tennant: I think truth is like a vibration .. on some level you feel it :)
--BELL--
Roger Ormenthal: Physics likes to quantize everything, but such is not yet fully proven. There is yet to be a demonstration of a quantized gravity particle - a "graviton". Re "undifferentiated mass" - no, of course not. But a very complex hierarchical 3D (or more) dynamic wave function, possibly. Modern physics now encompasses the idea that the observer changes an observed quantum system. And thus whatever the realities are of the validity of subjective knowledge, our consciousness which underlies that subjectivity, is inextricably connected to the physical universe at a quantum level. Just as an individual's ability to obtain information with objective tools varies depending on expertise and talent, there will be variation in the quality and validity of information gained subjectively.
Hokon Cazalet: so basically that pre-sensory sense of interconnectedness could be a psychological feature of all sentient beings =)
Roger Ormenthal: (sorry for all the typos!)
Hokon Cazalet: science is never fully proven; also thats only one interpretation of quantum physics, dozens exist that are all equally compatible with the data
Hokon Cazalet: thats the copenhagan interpretation, the very first one and the one Einstien didn’t like
Hokon Cazalet: (not doing an appeal to authority btw, Einstien was wrong about qwuantum physics overall)
Paradise Tennant: he thought he could get there by thinking ...
Paradise Tennant: think it is more a question of leaping :)
Hokon Cazalet: well actually he was leaping, thats the problem; he had certain intuitive dogmas about the world he wouldn’t give up
Hokon Cazalet: and thats why his later years are of little note, science moved on past his prejudices
Paradise Tennant: yes .. he did want to live in a crap game :)
Hokon Cazalet: intuition is not infallible, it is intuitive that the earth is stationary and the sun orbits the earth
Paradise Tennant: was .. problematic for his sensibilities .hence god does not throw dice
Hokon Cazalet: hehe
Hokon Cazalet: yup
Hokon Cazalet: he wanted a deterministic universe
Paradise Tennant: hmm I am not talking of intuition ..
Hokon Cazalet: oh ok =)
Paradise Tennant: hmmm
Paradise Tennant: need to find an example everyone has experienced
Roger Ormenthal: The ultimate story is far from fully written. I think we'll all be amazed/surprised at the ultimate answers. I hope we come upon some of them while we're still here. I propose a pizza party each time some big questions get answered.
Hokon Cazalet: Yaaaaayyyyyyyy!
Paradise Tennant: will bring the pepsi :)
Roger Ormenthal: I'll bring the ice cream.
Paradise Tennant: we could have pepsi floats :)
Hokon Cazalet: i personally think there’s a lot left to be learned too; though i no longer believe experience (perception) will ever get us there, i do think we need something that transcends sense-perception, so we can agree on that =)
Hokon Cazalet: ⓄⓂⒼ
Hokon Cazalet: MINE O.O
Hokon Cazalet: ill bring . . .
Hokon Cazalet: um
Hokon Cazalet: garlic bread =)
Hokon Cazalet: AHH!!!!
Roger Ormenthal: Oddly, we interface to our objective scientific instruments through our subjective senses.
Hokon Cazalet: harmonia arrives
harmoniasophia Scribe: Boo!
Paradise Tennant: love garlic bread :)
Hokon Cazalet: hehe yup roger, thats something most moderns dont wanna discuss
Paradise Tennant: hiya harmoniasophia :))
Hokon Cazalet: harmonia actually helped me focus on that; i tended to overlook that
harmoniasophia Scribe: Hi Paradise, Roger, Hokon ㋡
Hokon Cazalet: Weeee! ^.^
Roger Ormenthal: Hi
Hokon Cazalet: all knowledge is ultimately held by subjectivity (sapient being); so how do we get knowledge, how do we exit that sphere of subjectivity? - Probably #1 problem of modern philosophy
Hokon Cazalet: since Descartes and Locke
Hokon Cazalet: (1600s)
Paradise Tennant: smiles . I have an early morning and I am going to have to say thank you and good nite .. Getting heavy eyes here :) nice to see you again harmonia .. Going to have to reread the log .. a few times I suspect :) it was a very broad ranging and deep conversation :)
harmoniasophia Scribe: the answer is easy
Hokon Cazalet: and the biggest embarrassment to all scientific knowledge lol
Hokon Cazalet: hehe aww goodnighty paradise
harmoniasophia Scribe: nite Paradise
Roger Ormenthal: I don't think we can ultimately take ourselves out of the equation.
Hokon Cazalet: i dont think we can either, thats a mistake of modern empiricism imo
Hokon Cazalet: 20th century empiricism
Paradise Tennant: namaste my friends :)
harmoniasophia Scribe: shalom ㋡
Hokon Cazalet: modern empiricism assumes we have a transparent access to the world, i no longer think thats true anymore
Hokon Cazalet: (or if it does, it ends up being skeptical in a radical way)
Hokon Cazalet: or inconsistent :Þ
Hokon Cazalet: like i used to be =)
Hokon Cazalet: harmonia, unlike me, is into mysticism; we will sometimes discuss logic vs direct insight, and of course be on opposite sides, but its fun cuz i learn something when i chat with her, even if i never fully agree
Roger Ormenthal: Fortunately, we are all perfected logical objective beings here.
Hokon Cazalet: lol
harmoniasophia Scribe: o.O
Hokon Cazalet: lol
Hokon Cazalet: hi lucinda
harmoniasophia Scribe: logic is the evidence of a split mind, which cannot be perfect, that would be a contradiction which is exactly what a split mind is
harmoniasophia Scribe: it is both the cause and the effect
Hokon Cazalet: see =)
Lucinda Lavender: Hi Hokon!
Hokon Cazalet: Weeee! ^.^
--BELL--
Hokon Cazalet: actually i would agree, logic does require a mind that is fragmented, or at least loosened up quite a bit (though i see the latter as a positive)
Hokon Cazalet: (a fully fragmented mind = postmodern consciousness lol)
harmoniasophia Scribe: o.O
Hokon Cazalet: :Þ
Lucinda Lavender: :)
Lucinda Lavender: I will not be here for tomorrow morning's session ..going on a weekend trip.
Hokon Cazalet: where ya going?
Lucinda Lavender: Sisters OR
Hokon Cazalet: (whats an or?)
Lucinda Lavender: Quilt show takes over the town
harmoniasophia Scribe: i am of the understanding that if it is broke it is broke be it in half or a billion pieces, once it has split from its origination it has disconnected from all knowledge of its true self
Lucinda Lavender: Oregon
Hokon Cazalet: ohhhhhh
Hokon Cazalet: cool =)
Lucinda Lavender: I am not quilter but I will be observing
Lucinda Lavender: and hanging out with family
Hokon Cazalet: for me i dont think a "composite" mind is broken (a mind made up of parts); that'd be fun lucinda, i need to get away from my job and see something cool
Hokon Cazalet: i always liked quilts
Roger Ormenthal: I must go. It has been fun to explore with you.
Hokon Cazalet: awww
Hokon Cazalet: byebyes roger =)
Roger Ormenthal: Bye :)
Lucinda Lavender: http://www.sistersoutdoorquiltshow.org/
Lucinda Lavender: Ah...bye Roger:)
Hokon Cazalet: oo
Hokon Cazalet: !
Hokon Cazalet: i
Hokon Cazalet: must
Hokon Cazalet: go!!!!
harmoniasophia Scribe: it isnt broken, neither split, but if it believes it is, and must if it has parts, then it doesnt know itself as itself and would be nearly impssible to know itself rightly as long as it clings to the parts as part of itself
Hokon Cazalet: i do think its important to know oneself as oneself
harmoniasophia Scribe: peace can only be at this point, so too love only comes from an unbroken mind
Lucinda Lavender: must go for now...just placing my whereabouts into the greater consciousness...
Hokon Cazalet: okies
Hokon Cazalet: byebyes =)
Lucinda Lavender: bye bye:)