Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tub last won the day on April 22

Tub had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

22 Nice

About Tub

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

1459 profile views
  1. Origin of your UserName?

    Hello, tmx3, i like your photograph - who is that pretty girl with you? When i was a little boy, i had a cat just like you and, although he wasn't as clever as you and couldn't play chess, he was my best pal and his name was Tub - even though he was very skinny. So, when i was thinking of a name to use here that was also " short and sweet ", i thought of my old pal Tub and picked his name - even though i'm very skinny too! My avatar is a minstrel dressed as Harlequin.
  2. Brava, Gee; and Bravo to the moderator for ( temporarily? ) unlocking the thread to allow you to put your case - that really was an act of chivalry. Arise Sir Phi for All! That idea of truth-finding being a re-connection with everything was really your idea, Gee , i just picked up on it, as i have again just now, with your suggestion that this re-connection is, in one way, a return to innocence - that childlike innocence that has no fear of speaking truth to power, as in Hans Christian Andersen's story of " The Emperor's New Clothes " that you mentioned. ( " Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings " indeed ). I'm quickly folding my parachute now, Phi, so I'll finish with another bit of child's logic that's not too far off-topic, i hope: i was once doing a crossword puzzle and my little niece was sitting next to me; i filled-in the last word and said proudly " finished! ". " No you haven't ", she said, " you haven't done the black bits yet "......so, in light of the OP, what she said was true, and, even though she was wrong, she was right. P.S. I'm not nobility, Gee, but i have often over-heard people call me a Count. Perhaps i misheard them.
  3. I'm a bit tired of all this banter now and we might be getting a teeny-weeny bit off-topic so i'll let you have the last word - i expect it will be a short one.
  4. Maybe. I'm not here just to defend Gee, ( well i am really, as i don't like to see a lot of people ganging-up against one other ), but the main reason her posts are long is that she tends to reply to many posts all at the same time. I'm sure she will be along soon to defend herself better than i can. Great minds think alike.
  5. You'll have to ask her that, and have that dictionary ready just in case you can't understand what she says.
  6. Tut, tut. Language,Timothy! ( Shouldn't that be " bollocks " )?
  7. If i'm reading a complicated scientific post and i don't comprehend what is being said, i get my dictionary to help me; if you don't comprehend a complicated philosophy post you can get your dictionary to help you.
  8. Thanks, iNow. I didn't know you were fluent in Venusian sanskrit.
  9. Isn't it obvious? If you don't know what words mean, you look them up - that's why we have dictionaries, isn't it?
  10. Have a heart, boys. I'm sure Gee is well capable of defending herself but where's your sense of chivalry........and have you read some of the science posts? At the moment, i'm just wading through something about the relation of Gamma waves to the unity of consciousness; here's a short quote: "......the basis for consciousness in awake states and dreaming is 40-Hz throughout the cortical mantle in the form of thalamocortical iterative recurrent activity ". That may as well be written in Venusian sanskrit for all the sense it made to me so guess what i did? I got my dictionary - that's a book that tells you what words mean! Who'd have thought it?
  11. Sadly, i don't think there is a cure for your hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. Shame.
  12. Thanks,Gee. Here's your return call. Go prolix! ( You've probably noticed that i like to find unusual words and share them with people ). You were right, ( in your previous long post to me ), to see the influence of Jung: as a student, i read many of his books and found them fascinating and instructive. Like you, he recognised divisions in personal consciousness, ( and so divisions in his " collective " consciousness ), but his idea of the " individuation " process was not so much a description of how these divisions arise but more about how those fragments of a particular, nurtured consciousness are to be reintegrated and reconciled, leading to the emergence of a whole, undivided individual consciousness - individual in the sense of the word's Latin root "individuus ", which means " indivisible " rather than " separate ". So the fragmented consciousness becomes whole and undivided again , like the original tabula rasa as the early Stoics saw it. As everything has the same origin, i think that " new " consciousness can be regarded as the primogenitus that everything shares before that personal, divisive consciousness does intrude. In other words we reconnect........ .........and you asked if we are trying to " reconnect through truth ", which i think is a great insight - the best tool we have for understanding these matters. As we ( humanity ) are at the moment, we try to communicate and relate through the bars of our many artificial and superficial identities rather than through the sensitive, unidentified intelligence that sees this fact and the danger of it. Look at the chaos in the world today and you can see the clash of identities for real, and these separate identities which we have inherited are those " sins of the fathers " that go on causing much of that chaos.......... .........so , as you also wrote : " The conscious mind is the liar ". Another helpful insight. ( I would add " white " liar, too ). This has to be grasped clearly, i think, and not just intellectually, to see what's in what isn't true. ( I hope that's not that dreaded Liar's Paradox !). At the moment. though, i can't really subscribe to the notion of an unconscious mind per se as i feel that personal consciousness is an organic part of the brain and that the mind isn't actually part of the brain, even though a brain - in certain circumstances - can interact with the mind and vice versa. I may be groping in the dark here but i have this nagging inkling that, as the Universe is matter and energy, the brain is the matter of consciousness and the mind is the energy of consciousness, if that is even possible. Perhaps one of the scientists here can disabuse me of this idea. I also look at the unconscious as being the " old " brain which controls all the life-sustaining functions of the body, while the evolving " new " brain ( perhaps still in its infancy ) is the reservoir of self-consciousness - with a subliminal consciousness as a sort of very necessary " no-man's land " between the two. ( Almost like that angel with a flaming sword that bars the gates of Eden ). I may be spectacularly wrong about this! Good vs evil in religions? Yes - Manichaeism in particular takes this route and we also see it in the early Indian philosophical concepts of Dharma/Adharma. What is the opposite of evil, intentional evil, as we perceive it? I would guess that intentional evil is extreme selfishness, so its antithesis would be complete selflessness, as long as clinical insanity plays no part in either. ( It may be apocryphal, but it is said that Buddha was so selfless that he offered to let a hungry tiger eat him! He must have truly believed that " I am the food that eats the eater of food " ). I do agree with you that Nature , even though " red in tooth and claw ", can't be seen as being evil because of that - every creature lives at another creatures expense...... ..........it follows,then, as you wrote: " For a man to be evil there has to be some person outside of the man who names the man as evil ". Even if that man is not evil, we all do this. We don't want to think of ourselves as evil so we create scapegoats by projecting all our own " faults " onto others and by projecting all " badness " onto others, individually and collectively, we feel better that it is " us " who are the goodies and " them " who are the baddies. I'm sure you already know this. We don't see those " beams and motes " in our eyes and God is always on our side.......... .........like the medieval Crusaders you mentioned who were given papal licence to massacre all those godless foreign pagans - and throw in a few casual homeland pograms while they were at it - and receive a nice heavenly reward for doing so. It may ring a few contemporary bells but our fanatical ( so-called ) Christian forefathers could give anyone lessons in religious genocide. You also wondered about the role of the snake in mythology and i think the serpent in Eden was introduced as the personification of evil which was necessary for the myth because if there was no evil there would be no need for a good God and so constraint on " sinful " behaviour. You say you are " fairly certain " that reincarnation happens and i agree up to a point. I think that scientists, at least, might agree that all of the physical organism is recycled after death - although a " dead " body is not really dead or it wouldn't decompose. As i see it though,i don't think there is any part of " me " that is somehow separate from the rest that can survive what we call death. As i said, i regard personal consciousness as being organic just as thought is a mechanical activity of the brain that doesn't survive or get reincarnated: the thinker is the thought and the thought is the thinker. I don't think there is an entity inhabiting the body who does the thinking - no " Ghost in the machine " ( Remember ? )........... .......only because i think the nurtured psyche is an artificial concept - that colossus with the feet of clay - so the only thing that really dies is that separative acquired " self " that really wasn't ever born anyway. As Shakespeare wrote in The Tempest : " We are such stuff as dreams are made of, and our little life is rounded with a sleep ". Don't despair though, Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote " Death is the end of everything but it is also the beginning of everything ". Both men great hierophants .https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hierophancy ( Strangely, and honestly, as i was writing this, a song came on my radio called " You were never really here " ! How is that for confirmation bias, haha! ). I think that what JK meant was that living is a process of endless, total dying so life is always new - not a continuation or an accumulation. I may be wrong, but in light of this, i think that as an inseparable part of the whole of life, we can never not be a part of life in one way or another. If everything " comes " from the same source, it " returns " to the same source. Physically, we are stardust and unto stardust we will return. But ( sigh ) who does know what really happens after death - other opinions are available and perhaps we have to swallow our pride and surrender to ignorance as to what really does happen - will we ever know we are " dead "? In the end, i guess Mother Nature knows best what to do with dead bodies so i'll leave it up to her. As for those " startling implications " of the Christian crucifixion, i'll just say that if you look at the the life of Jesus, as it is reported, it reads ( to me at the very least ) as an ingenious psychodrama. Apologies for being melodramatic, but it's not right for me to impose my way of thinking here so can only reiterate: Christ/ Ego........ Good Thief/Superego...... Bad Thief/Id. If you see for yourself what i mean then that's your own insight, but even if you don't see anything worthwhile in this that's ok too. In return, there's no need to reply quickly - or not at all if you don't want to, haha. I think this post is long enough now. I could have rambled on a lot longer but my poor little typing-finger is getting tired and, being so humble, i really don't want to be the hierophant in the room.
  13. Sorry about that, Gee - my computer crashed so it certainly was a lot less prolix than usual! ( Poetic justice? ). I'll get back to you asap.
  14. Hello again, Gee.I will try to be a little less prolix. ( https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prolix
  15. Thanks, Gee. No need to rush your reply. Truth, itself, clearly can't be particular or personal, or open to interpretation, ( i think that's the point you're making, MigL ), but the approach is, of necessity, a personal one: people are all different in temperament, character, abilities, skills, talents and natural proclivities, and have widely varied circumstances and environments to cope with; all these factors play a part - from the cerebral, contemplative monastic orders through Buddha's " Middle Way " to the extreme physical asceticism of some Yogic practices, people have tried different ways for centuries to come to what amounts to the same result. Whatever way we take, though, the normal, insistent demands of everyday-life can't be ignored. I can't say there is a definitive right or wrong approach, as the paths of saints and sinners can all lead to that same epiphany - a ( sudden, sometimes ) insight or relevation, seeing what is " wrong " in what is " right ", and seeing what is " right " in what is " wrong ". ( That Good Thief/Bad Thief routine again! ). I don't have a Bible but i think, ( from childhood memories of a strict Catholic upbringing ), that there is a cryptic quote along the lines of " My Father's house has many rooms " which i interpret as meaning that no-one is excluded from finding that Truth, and there many ways to arrive at the same conclusion. Distance and direction may be different but the destination is the same even though we don't all tread the same path at the same pace - and hear those different drummers.