Date:   1/30/2003 10:03:55 AM ( 21 y ago)
Hits:   4,425
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=137236

>Cletus, I like you.

Thanks. My directness has a tendency to rub people the wrong way sometimes. I'm glad it hasn't put you off.

>I like your logical thinking and intelligence.

I dont' know if you know who Norman Vincent Peale was. I was instructed in logic by his son.

>Maybe I'm just overly sensitive when I hear "science" - my >mind automatically clicks to "medical science", even >though I know it's just a small piece of the "big >picture". And that's when I go to "emotional mode". If you >read on this website a little, you'll see what I mean, how >many lives are ruined or jeopardized in the name >of "research" and "proof" - doctors would never >mention "business" and "special interest", maybe they're >not even aware of that...

I understand completely and dont' necessarily disagree with you. Dr.s are people and just like any other person are prone to human weaknesses(greed, indifference, etc). But I would remind you of something shakespeare said... nothing is good or bad except thinking makes it so. A good example is nuclear energy. Is it good or bad? The nuclear power industry has made it crystal clear that they are more interested in profit than safety and cannot be truested to oversee themselves. At the same time there have been incredible strides made in medical Science due to splitting the atom. Your motives are what make Science "good or bad". Let's take cloning(and ignore all the hysteria that's been in the media recently). With Cloning it would be possible to grow a liver(insert your favorite organ here) if I were in an accident and b/c it's my liver there'd be no tissue rejection. At the same time what would keep a "boys from brazil" scenario from happening(Cloning Hitler). Oxford (or maybe it's cambridge I forget) still has some of Issac Newton's hair.... is it a good idea to clone Newton? ;) So would it be a good idea not to clone Hitler but ok for Issac Newton? Then we get into the grey area where things aren't so clear. Black and white are just extreme cases of grey.

>When it comes to big discoveries, I'm always uplifted, I >think those people really work(ed) extra hard (to say the >least) to come up with a new solution or new idea to solve >a problem - the big disaster begins when they apply the >results to humanity without respect and logical thinking
>(and like I said: money rules even more than we think).

Einstein was fond of saying that technology hasn't improved our lives as we haven't figured out how to make judicious use of it yet.
But you do bring up an important point. Logical thinking is the cornerstone to successful science. There are very definite rules for logic. I recognize that logic is the begining not the end but I know of no better place to start. I've been trying to explain that a lot of astrology is logically inconsistent. But I recognize that physics, before Galileo and Newton, had a lot of logical inconsistancies too. In fact it was the blind obedience to Aristotle's thinking that kept us in the dark ages for over 2 thousand years! So when I hear people say things about the tides or phases of the moon that can't possibly be true I understand that many "physicists" were in the dark about gravity and it's effects back in the 1500's(and prior). In time these anomolies were corrected.
As for money ruling things.... you have no idea. Our politicians crow like roosters about the "budget surplus". How can we be 6 TRILLION dollars in debt and have a surplus?
Let's throw a little light on that. 6 trillion... how big is that... imagine for a moment that each dollar of the federal debt were 1 second. The federal debt would be over 220,000 YEARS long. The federal reserve banks make 1 Million dollars A MINUTE interst fees. Mind you.. that's not the principle.... that's only to service the *interest* on the debt. I'd like anyone to show me how it is that there is 6 trillion dollars worth of anything in this country. It's unpayable. And the federal reserve is no more federal than federal express. The courts have ruled that the word "federal" has no priveldged legal meaning and the Federal Reserve Banks are NOT governement instrumentalities.... it's a PRIVATE bank. Verification of this can be found in "United States v Lewis" and in the history of the "Federal Tort Claims Act".
And regardless of how many times CNN may say it... the president NOMINATES (not appoints) the federal reserve chairman (currently Mr. Greenspan). The federal reserve board of govenors is free to disagree and *appoint* whomever they please.

>Just see the example of Antibiotics . So to look at things >from this angle: logical thinking is essencial, I agree.
>BUT: I can't turn around and deny my own self: being a

Ahhhh! It was this EXACT premise that Rene' Descartes used as the basis of his philisophical arguments. He said "Cogito Ergo Sum"... I think, therefore, I am. It's also interesting to see the way he *reasoned* himself into the existance of God.
Let me digress a little. When someone says "God did it" I have to reply... "that's very probably true. But as a logical premise it's worthless b/c it doesn't aford you any predictive power". And since you're using something infinite to start with you can go hog wild in 1 easy step as you're using something infinite as justification for your conclusions.
Descarte said "I be". I'm here.... but did I create me? If I were responsible for creating me then I would have created myself in the most perfect form I can imagine. I am not in the most perfect form I can imagine so it follows that I didnt' create me. So If I'm here and I didnt' create me how did I get here?
The point is that by assuming a MUCH simpler premise Descarte was able to *reason* himself out of a state of ignorance. It didn't provide all the answers and he knew that but at least he knew what he knew.
There is a divine simplicity in knowing what you dont' know and Descarte understood that. Pascal and Spinoza have a lot to say on the matter too. :)

>woman means intuition and feelings have just the same >importance and these things are rather hard to explain on >the logical way... :)

Ahhh ... I'm beginging to see the problem. :) There is nothing wrong with using intuition to guide you. And being a woman doesn't mean you have no ability to think logically anymore than my being a man means I can't think intuatively(please find out who Sonya Kovalevsky, Margeret Geller were and take note that Madam Curie was the ONLY PERSON EVER to win 2 nobel prizes in different disciplines). I read a book on the brain many years ago. The section on gender differences told me pretty much what I expected. There are differences surely.... but the similarities swamp any real differences. And the differences tend to be complimentary. Theses are generalizations of course: woman have better fine tactial coordination, men have better overall gross body coordination, woman have better high pitched hearing, men have better low pitched hearing, women have better daytime vision, men have better night time vision, women tend to have better vocabularies, men tend to have better spatial manipulation, men are usually larger and stronger but womens muscles are, on a 1 to 1 basis, stronger and more efficient. Women tend to be interested in people while men tend to be interested in "things".
I've always thought these last 2 items make women much better canidates for space travel. They weigh less, eat less, fight less and are generally more willing to work in group settings.

>I'm sure you can find logical "sommersaults" in this text >too - like I said: emotions... :) I just would like to let >you know, there is no way of "right thinking" as long as >we benefit from it, we feel good and right and honest >about it.

Ok... I will agree that there is no single right way of thinking. But I will counter that there very defintely are wrong ways to go about thinking. And logic can keep us away from those "methods" that yield erroneous conclusions.

>I would be curious, what is your opinion about >psychics...

I try to keep an open mind. The brain is a magnificent thing. During the evolution of man there had to be a first person to speak, to cipher(language and mathematics) and to produce art for it's owm sake. So, even though I wasn't there to witness these breakthroughs, and b/c we are sitting here communicating and EXCHANGING IDEAS! (very important), I have *evidence* that the brain is not static and continues to evolve.
Ask your favorite brain doctor.... there are parts of the brain that they have no clue what it does. So I find the notion that the brain would develop new methods of "reaching out" isn't so far fetched.
I guess I haven't really answered the quetion. Yes. I believe that psychics may exist. I DO NOT believe that Ms. Cleo or Diane Worwhick (sp) knows any of them. The best evidence for a "psychic" I've ever seen is Edgar Casey(sp).
What I would want is evidence of psychic ability and further to study it so that it might be understood and communicated to others. Wouldn't it be wonderful if in addition to finding out legitimate psychics did exist that you could teach this to others the same way we teach grammar to children? :)



 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.04 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=137236