such a plethora of 'maybes' there, Little Hawk.. :>0

Maybe in a former life I was sitting in the Lyceum, baiting Socrates about his 'method'....but maybe not.

you say "I find it fun to discuss such things, just in order to raise the possibility and give it some thought." ....yep, it is a useful and traditional exercise in order to practice thinking and explore our shared experiences. I do it myself about some things. What I often see, however, is the line being crossed bewteen "what if X were the case?", to "that sounds so good and hangs together internally, that I bet it is probably true!"

It is not too hard to construct an internally consistent theory, much as David Hume did with his very 'solipsistic' view of experience. (I can't prove that anything exists outside my own mind)...but there is little practical application for such a theory. You can't get a court to ignore your crimes by claiming that 'there really isn't any 'bank' that can BE robbed.

At their worse, 'what ifs' can be dangerous and detrimental. Small children, who believe things easily, can be seriously traumatized by scary stories and lies. Religious cults based on the fantasies of charismatic, but disturbed, leaders can bring misery to many people.    There is a long, convoluted continuum between harmless, creative speculation and dangerous, inaccurate distortion of reason for dishonest purposes, and obviously, there is no clear 'line in the sand' where it shifts from bad to good. Just as in defining 'folk', there are many things to consider when evaluating a claim or idea.
   As you may have possibly noted in passing, (*VERY big grin*), one of my favorite targets is careless use of language and lack of reasonable disclaimers when promoting a less-than-obvious notion. I do this because of the POWER of words, written or spoken, to influence receptive minds; and a well-tuned and emotionally presented FALSE idea can win support easier than a careful, logical, BORING explanation of the alternatives!

Is it worth my time?...well, it got things like: "(that's more spiritual theorizing...nothing more) (I'm not saying I know.)" included in one post! A huge step...*smile*

You know what the situation is: in a forum like this, we have folks steeped in Astrology, Religion, Para-normal abilities, Witchcraft, Alien Encounters, theories of alternate Universes, theories of multiple levels of THIS Universe, Mythology, ...and who knows, maybe Phrenology, Tarot, tea-leaves and sheep entrails too! Since all those things have been important parts of our history as humans, I have no problem with those who wish to explain why they are intrigued by such ideas, but when their statements assume the truth of the notions, my alarm bells go off!

( yeah, we have a few contributors who really can't deal with this discussion and who I seldom bother to talk to...this usually means religious fundamentalists who simply have no idea how to debate their beliefs....but CAN include those who just as vehemently and carelessly deride and ridicule a belief because of some emotional baggage...

Amos...if you are reading way down here, I don't think I did 'miss the point'...I see what you are trying to convey about the power of poetry (in its various forms) to expand the mind and help us express things that proper grammar often limits...but....(you knew there'd be a 'but', huh?)...but, your sentence:
"By breaking those rules, it bypassed the filtering machinery so often used to stand between the self and immediate apperception."
breaks what *I* consider to be rules by (very long pause here, as I sit and stare at the screen and try to express my concern..)....let's try this....by exaggerating inflating? the concept of 'self' and loosely applying the very possibility of immediate apperception to what a 'self' might be able to do at all.
   Kant used language like "pure apperception", and it does have cognative relevance in some contexts, but he was purty durn strict about his usage. [I ain't too sure whether my 'self' (as differentiated from 'me') CAN 'immediately apperceive' anything if that means something different from 'experience'.] Husserl used the idea of an 'eidetic reduction' to explain certain theoretical philosophical processes, but no one ever seriously suggested that we could go about doing eidetic reductions, as if it were just a matter of practice, like Yoga breath control.


well...as usual, more answer than I planned, or than anyone probably wanted. .....but I typed it, and I'm jolly well gonna hit the damn submit button before I lose it all!