Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Tub

  1. 4 hours ago, tmx3 said:

    Chess. Lol. Wanted something short and sweet to login and play chess online with people. Yup. 

    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. 11 hours ago, Gees said:





    ....... Ten plus years ago, I had a major attack of MS (Multiple Sclerosis) which took away more than half of my vocabulary; some rather specific cognitive skills; my vision for a few months, and when it returned I was dyslexic; my strength; and my ability to work. This was six months after my husband died of cancer, so I spent years in a fog. It took years of work, hard work, to learn to read again and restore most of my vocabulary, but I never regained all of my learning ability or cognitive skills.

    I went from being a person, who could learn whatever I wanted and retain it, to a person who keeps a dictionary, thesaurus, and a note pad at my fingertips. Neurologists tell me that "pathways" were damaged. My thought is that MS got into my brain and dumped all of my carefully filed information all over the damned floor, hid entire file cabinets behind walls, and closed off entire rooms with rubble. So yes, I am a little wordy sometimes. People can learn to deal with it -- I did.




    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. 2 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I think it's less about needing a dictionary and more about needing time to get through the 74,000 word posts.

    Philosophy: Why say in 5 words what can be said in 5,000!

    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.

    3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    It's funny how you both congratulate each other, whilst misunderstanding the point and the dictionary.

    Great minds think alike.

  4. Just now, iNow said:

    There's a specific part of the brain that vibrates in a certain way, much like a radio station you select on the dial of your tuner. We're gaining increased confidence that it's this vibration in this spot that is responsible for our sense of consciousness while awake.

    Thanks, iNow. I didn't know you were fluent in Venusian sanskrit.:)

  5. 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? :)


  6. 10 hours ago, Gees said:


    Take your time about responding.


    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.:D

  7. 6 hours ago, Gees said:

     My perspectives on these points differ because my approach differs, but these differences are more additional, rather than adversarial. 



    Thanks, Gee. No need to rush your reply.

    6 hours ago, MigL said:


    "My perspectives on these points differ because my approach differs"

    What does that tell you about any 'truths' gleaned from these differing approaches ?

    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.

  8. On 21/03/2018 at 2:22 PM, Gees said:


    Some people say that the Bible is the word of "God" and everything in it is true; others say that the Bible is a bunch of nonsense made up to control lesser minds. I find both of these ideas invalid. So how does one separate out the truth, which is rarely pure and never simple, from the rest? Following are the steps that I would take to start this separation. Please note that I have no idea whether or not you have a religious preference, or what it may be, but I have no intention to offend anyone. Just looking for truths.

    1. First separate out Religion. When I read the word "God", I interpret that to mean "the unknown author". When I read sinner, evil, punishment, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is bad for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author. When I read about heavenly rewards, goodness, innocence, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is good for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author.

    2. If the Bible is not a religious book, then what is it? A history book, and history books are notorious for having a bias regarding history. This is because history books are written by people who wish to promote their own history, so they usually have a singular perspective, which must be considered. Also consider that the Bible is a book of books by various authors. These books were originally stories or scrolls, which were transcribed into books. And one must consider that there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of scrolls in the basements of the Vatican, which may or may not be relevant to the history, so the books of the Bible have been preselected. One can not expect that this is a comprehensive history.


    To be clear from the start, Gee, i am definitely not a Knipperdolling (  https://1word1day.livejournal.com/680265.html  ) but,like yourself, i haven't the slightest animosity towards anyone who peacefully follows any faith - whatever gets you through the night, as we say. Even though i don't follow any religious faith, i would still call myself a religious man, ( in the early sense of the word " religious " as derived from the Latin " religare ", which can mean " bind together " ), as i do believe that all Life is physically and consciously bound together: everything that exists is simply a different expression of the same essence - whatever that essence may be.

    Do you not regard the Bible as a religious book at all?  I think it is , in one way, a religious book, in that it was, and is, an influence on the so-called revealed Abrahamic faiths, but i would never go as far as to call any book divine or sacred. I do agree that the Bible is a valid source for studying consciousness:  religions definitely affect and infect consciousness,veneficially as well as beneficially, so they can't be ignored.

    If not taken literally, as others have said, there are singular truths to be found in the Bible, even if not the absolute, ineffable Truth, and these truths don't really need to have a religious  context to be true so "... separate out  Religion ", as you said. Among those truths i can see definite psychological lessons, couched in allegory and metaphor: The Garden of Eden. for example, is obviously not a real geographical place but a psychological condition ( a state of Truth, perhaps ) that i think is the genuine, initial state of the unconditioned, undivided conscious mind -  a state of the innocence/ignorance of childhood that is not separated from a unified one-ness with Nature, ( egoless, in fact ), which we lose as we rightly grow into adulthood, develop that ego and a separative self-identity and " fall " into the ways of the world around us.

    In a sense, then, we " leave  the Garden "  when we put-off childhood and i think that what we call the search for Truth is really an attempt to get back into Eden. ( Do you know the chorus of Joni Mitchell's song " Woodstock "? She says as much in a scientific and psychological way. I don't think i can use the lyrics here without permission - you probably know more than i do about copyright laws ). Obviously we can't go back to our actual childhood, but i think it is possible to reconnect, as a wiser adult, with that first unconditioned conscious state of mind that existed before the brain did get conditioned through upbringing, education etc.

    In that first pre-conditioned state, right and wrong, ( not necessarily equivalent to good and bad ), don't seem to impinge on consciousness until we " eat of the fruit ",  leave the Garden and gain that new knowledge which, in turn, gives birth to the universal, intrapersonal conflict between the perceived good and bad sides of the personality - a conflict that ideally culminates in the realisation of the metaphor of the Christian crucifixion and a return to the Garden. Witness to this is a famous Bible quote : " Unless you change and become like little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven ". The kingdom of Heaven being also a state of mind - not a place of reward for good behaviour after we die. 

    From the allegorical Garden we go, figuratively, through what Hermann Hesse called " the Hell of myself ",  inclusive of Purgatory and Limbo ( again, all states of mind encountered while alive, not after death ). At the end of this " Pilgrim's Progress " we arrive at the metaphorical, psychological crucifixion and death of the old  self ( " the son of Man " ) and the Phoenix-like resurrection of a new faith-free enlightened self ( " the son of God " ). I think this is the true meaning of a " virgin-birth ". Again, not after death. What is re-born is not a re-birth of the old consciousness but a totally new consciousness completely unconnected with   the old, dead consciousness.

    I think i've been a bit incoherent with that last paragraph so i'll try to explain what i was trying to get at with this other cryptic ( paraphrased ) Biblical quote:  "He who loses himself shall find himself ". Which is still relevant today and can be clearly linked to Jung's  process of" Individuation " and Freud's model of the Psyche and ultimately , again, to that psychological death of the self "on the cross". If  you relate   Christ/ Good Thief/Bad Thief to  Ego/Superego/Id,   you may see  some sense in that - or not, of course. If there is a link, however,  it could have startling implications.

    So, at last, " .... How do we find Truth? ", you ask. Well, when we speak of it, i think the search for Truth is the personal search for the truth of one's self, ( that Holy Grail ), and therefore the truth of all selves. It's a conscious undertaking, but none the less practical for that,and seems to me to be consciousness trying to fully understand itself ( even the brain studying the brain to understand the brain, which is quite strange ). The search itself, however, and as you implied, could be the corrupting factor in itself. ( A thief  dressed up as a policeman to catch a thief ). The search is the seeker and i think the seeker, ( the conditioned consciousness ), is the very obstacle that needs to be overcome as a pre-requisite to any progress.

    I do think we can discover the truth of our psychological self, and that understanding of one's self is perhaps the first step we can take towards Truth and that " Peace that passeth understanding " - which, i think, is a liberation from our conditioned consciousness (  but not freedom of  it - we still need it for normal social interaction ). I don't  think  we can take  a scientific or philosophical approach to the problem; as much as i love and value both. i don't think Truth can be approached impartially, not through any kind of knowledge or preconceptions -  only through a clear observation of our conscious, conditioned self and not as an entity standing outside of consciousness  observing from a distance, but as consciousness observing itself: the actor in the wings is part of the play.

    So, ( sigh ), Truth may be waiting " there " where it's always been when we stop searching for it. ( First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is ). The great Delphic maxim " Know thyself " is very apposite to that end. We can't follow any leader either, ( " Kill the Buddha ", said Buddha ), and i think what is really necessary is atemporary conscious-anonymity of a short-term self-forgetfulness  - we can't live all day with our head in the clouds - but, and it's a big but,  what if Truth can never be a personal possession?  Are we  even capable of being conscious of Truth, or can we only know what it isn't?  Who can say without straying into ultracrepidarianism**? ( What a lovely word).

    In conclusion, then, i'd have to say that it is a case of knowing " how " to look, not " where " to look. It goes without saying , though, that i may be utterly bonkers and talking nonsense- i'm sure someone will tell me, but i promise i won't go for the Galileo Gambit: i'm well aware of my own infinite insignificance so,in all honesty, i must admit that however sincere i've tried to be, i have to accept that, perhaps , nothing i've said can be taken for the gospel truth.

    **  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ultracrepidarianism

  9. Dear me, Gee, you really pack so much into your posts - and  always articulately and with so much scholarship; I envy you  that. ( Shall we get a room? Ha,ha.).  Anyway.........

    2 hours ago, Gees said:



    ........ how do we find truth?


    If only i knew, i would happily tell you but i can't give any glib, confident reply, though i would suggest, in all diffidence, that (the) Truth may actually be simpler than we think ,and perhaps it is our methods of approach that are too complex. Give me a little time to digest your post and gather my thoughts. ( If i can find any! ). 

    P.S. Thank you for your kind praise.:wub: 

    P.P.S. One thing i can do with complete confidence, ( being half-Irish ), is  sort out the Patty/Paddy affair: Patrick is the Anglicized spelling of the original Gaelic spelling which is Padraig, pronounced Podrick, so that's where Paddy with a " d " comes from; the female variation for Patricia is Padraigin , pronounced Podrageen.  

  10. 6 minutes ago, Strange said:


    ........ it is doubtful a singularity represents physical reality. 

    No one knows.......  ( why the Universe expanded when it did at the velocity it did )......  Quantum fluctuation? Big bounce? Colliding multiverse? Other?

    I think that if the universe is infinite then the initial hot dense state (not singularity) must have been infinite too. 

    I hope the OP found it (and the other answers) useful too :)


    Thanks, Strange. I certainly found it very helpful.

  11. 21 hours ago, Strange said:


    .........the universe has always been completely full of matter. 



    Wow, that really made me sit up and take notice: i've never looked at it that way before. So would it be right to say, then, that the suggested singularity was the whole universe and that it "just " expanded, rather than it came into existence from nothing?  I'd have to ask two questions now: why did it expand at the moment it did at the velocity it did ( as gwb in the OP  has mentioned ), and is it at all possible that that singularity could have been inconceivably large even before it expanded- if that's not a contradiction in terms? 

    +1. I wasn't able to upvote your post.

  12. 4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Perception and truth aren't the same. 

    In general i'd agree, but there may be some fortuitous incidents when perception and reality/truth do happen to coincide - even though we might not be able to be fully aware of it.


    41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    ......how come I get the shit end? :huh::unsure::mellow::P

    It could be worse dim: have you seen the film " Brothers Grimsby " ?  If you haven't, Google the elephant scene.

    P. S. It's not suitable for anyone under 18 - or anyone over 18, to be honest - but it is very funny. Honestly!

  13. 14 hours ago, Area54 said:

    In recent decades I've viewed truth as a colloquial expression, useful for conversations where the participants share common backgrounds and worldviews, but out of place in a serious conversation in science or philosophy. I prefer a world characterised by shades of reality and perception.


    3 hours ago, MigL said:

    I think Gees introduced the topic of an elephant.

    Koty is the blind man holding the trunk, and trying to describe it.
    Strange is the blind man holding the ears and trying to describe it.
    Ten oz is the blind man holding a leg and trying to describe it.
    And Dimreepr is the blind man holding the tail and trying to describe it.

    Sorry Gees, but you've created a mess.
    I think you're gonna have to re-state and clarify the OP.

    I think these two quotes sum it up for me: the reality of the elephant is absolute, impersonal and objective; the perception of the elephant is relative, personal and subjective.  I'm reminded of a brilliant 80's Irish sitcom ( Father Ted ) where Ted was explaining to dumb Dougal that cows are normally the same size but the very small cows were " far away  ".

    Regarding the OP, my perception was that Gees , in this case, was using truth to mean honesty, when asking if truth can be trusted, so i would say that absolute, objective Truth/Reality can be trusted, ( if we can recognize It as such ),  whereas relative, subjective truth obviously can't be completely trusted. That seems pure and simple but, as Oscar Wilde said: " The truth is rarely pure and never simple ". As for sticking to unwavering, absolute honesty, i would say that a benign expediency, or even silence, is sometimes the better course to follow.

    Are right and wrong related? I would say no - if something is right, it's just right; it isn't right because something else is wrong: 2 + 2 = 4 isn't right because 2 + 2 = 86* is wrong.

     ( * That is wrong, right ? ). :D.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.