Thought for the day - February 20, 2000

Subject: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:35 AM

All phenomena are threefold; there is no physical oneness. All physical manifestations, even those apparently single and individual in nature, have a threefold origin; otherwise, manifestation could not occur. This basic trinity is represented by the Philosophical Sulphur, Salt and Mercury, always constituting apparent oneness. Duality, negative and positive, is merely an individual concept to describe physical manifestation. From concepts such as this, based on physical phenomena, conclusions are formed. Since physical actualities are not absolute realities, but change due to constant atomic rearrangement, the conclusions formed constitute only a hypothesis based on physical experience, and do not represent an absolute reality. Therefore, that which IS, exists because of its own consciousness. That which IS embraces all that we can experience consciously or subconsciously. To think of that which IS as dual is only an individual concept based on physical manifestation. A thing that IS may be interpreted as perfectly good by one person and horribly evil by another, both interpretations being applied to the same entity that IS. In reality, it cannot be both, but only one. This absolute one, or as Kant has called it, the thing-in-itself ("Das Ding an Sich"), constitutes consciousness of itself inherent in every cell or whatever consciousness makes itself manifest. Every duality has its origin in one cosmic consciousness. Here again it is the alchemist who diligently advocates this vital principle of the oneness of all things.

From the Alchemist's Handbok by Frater Albertus

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:41 AM

Good Moooorning kat: You sure we want to get into this?

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:48 AM

I have enjoyed the notion since college that while categories of various kinds can never be demonstrated in "absolute" terms, vecause of the infinite gradations of all qualities, never the less the one absolute that could be attained is the thing in itself at the instant at which you are looking at it -- the thing-now. At that moment of course, it is being taken entirely as it is in the instant without comparison, making it an absolute unto itself.

Seemed important at the time, but I think I understand where the term "sophomoric" comes from....

A

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Crowhugger
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:52 AM

Theosophy 101...well that ONE way to start off a Sunday, though a hangover would be easier on my head. %-)

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 07:53 AM

Ahh kat, you've been snacking on brain food again love. Yours,Aye. Dave

The very existence of music is wonderful, I might even say miraculous. Its domain is between thought and phenomena. Like a twilight mediator, it hovers between spirit and matter, related to both, yet differing from each. It is spirit, but it is spirit subject to the measurement of time. It is matter, but it is matter that can dispense with space. Heinrich Heine

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Osmium
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 08:02 AM

The entity that may exist in one fleeting moment of time must change before the next fleeting moment and is no longer what it was before. Music can only exist in time and is past before it can be comprehended in memory. Conscoiusness can only be through memory but change has already occurred so we may never comprehend the IS of this moment in time.

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: TerriM
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 08:26 AM

can I phone a friend?

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Osmium
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 08:34 AM

TerriM

Im sure your friend is still a friend but you'll never know until you've asked and even then time will have passed. The nice thing about it is that we can also never know what would have happened had we not made what might have been an awful decision some time past. Stay happy!

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 08:47 AM

TerriM, go ahead...call "our mutual friend"; I've promised him a copy of this book!**BG**

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 09:15 AM

I'm a little dense, but I read the above several times, and I'm imagining the coffee I'm drinking suddenly deciding it would rather be battery acid. Maybe if the coffee is concious, it also has a sense of humor.

What if the way a hundred different people view a thing were all true, and the thing is a hundred different things. This is certainly true of concepts, if not objects. ("What is folk music?") And what fundamental aspects would viewed the same by everyone so the thing remains the thing...

Isn't it a theory of quantum mechanics that the way a particle behaves can be affected by someone observing it?

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Troll
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 09:41 AM

Say Wha?

troll

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:09 PM

Kant points out that we can have no experience of the thing-in-itself: the phenomenon tells us nothing about the noumenon. Physical manifestation as the ground of phenomenon is itself a noumenal hypothesis, and is unwarranted by the very position being cited. This is all bad Fichte (which is the smell you get when you inadvertantly leave one of your catch of fichte at the bottom of your boat for two or three days).
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:13 PM

on the other hand

Subject: Lyr Add: BRUCES' PHILOSOPHERS' SONG (Eric Idle)
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:36 PM

BRUCES' PHILOSOPHERS' SONG
By Eric Idle (Of Monty Python)

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 09:20 PM

MamaKat, I really wanted to contribute to your Thought for the day, but after reading it and the discussion that followed, it made me feel dizzy so I layed down for a nap.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 00 - 09:23 PM

Lo, how the endless spaces of Being make the landlubbers call for Dramamine.

Thinkety thinkety think!

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Ringer
Date: 21 Feb 00 - 01:40 PM

C'mon, kat: you're just winding me up, aren't you?

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Feb 00 - 01:48 PM

Am I?**BG**

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 00 - 02:13 PM

The latest trippy insight inot the nature of life, the universe, the nature of life-forms and evolutions inner patterns can be found here .

It addresses the question, "Does genetic code (and all that implies about evolution) inhabit the quantum multiverse?"

Go figger.

A

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Feb 00 - 02:39 PM

Thayut's strayenge, Ah thowt Ah'd fownded it C'HERE

Subject: RE: Thought for the day - February 20, 2000
From: Metchosin
Date: 21 Feb 00 - 03:13 PM

or we could introduce the chaos theory and something about butterfly wings but this too, would put a strain on me brain, so I leave you with my favorite quote from a seven year old regarding her book report (out of the mouths of babes):

This book tells me more about turtles than I wish to know.