UNCIVILISATION: The Dark Mountain Network

A space for conversations in a time of global disruption

Who am I ?


What am I ? 


What are we ?


Any the wiser ? 


Oh, well, I suppose we are all Waiting for Godot, whether we like it or not, whether we realise it or not.


Why do Vladimir and Estragon remind me of Vinay Gupta ? Perhaps it is the hat in the video ?


Or perhaps it is the realisation of the utter futility of anything that we do, yet we have to do what we do, we must, because what else can we do, except to try our best, to follow what we believe to be right and good ?


Estragon, sitting on a low mound, is trying to take off his boot. He pulls at it with both hands, panting.

(giving up again). Nothing to be done.
(advancing with short, stiff strides, legs wide apart). I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. (He broods, musing on the struggle. Turning to Estragon.) So there you are again.



So, is it better to remain, and wait for Godot until the very end ? Or shall we go, walk, travel, through time and space, overland on feet and shoes ? I have tried both, although nowadays I remain sedentary, static, fixed. Like Thoreau at Walden Pond, I travel far whilst remaining in the same place.


MORE SHOES (pt. 2 of 2), complete documentary from Lee Kazimir on Vimeo.

He gives up, exhausted, rests, tries again.As before.Enter Vladimir.ESTRAGON:(giving up again). Nothing to be done.VLADIMIR:(advancing with short, stiff strides, legs wide apart). I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. (He broods, musing on the struggle. Turning to Estragon.) So there you are again.

He gives up, exhausted, rests, tries again.As before.Enter Vladimir.ESTRAGON:(giving up again). Nothing to be done.VLADIMIR:(advancing with short, stiff strides, legs wide apart). I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. (He broods, musing on the struggle. Turning to Estragon.) So there you are again.

Views: 9288

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

hi Wolfbird, Hi Judith Comstock

Yes it turns all our beliefs to jelly , to mush....Puts in to doubt the whole myth of human existance . According to that story , we are told and indeed expected to live ...That we are born into the world of the senses, so we can wander senslessy around it for a while . Then we die .And the whole universe goes on without us....All our existance is based on this idea, that we are little selves in the middle of everything we percieve, surrounded by this incredible vastness that is seperate and independant from us .

But once we bring this idea of our influence on the world . And I would push the envelope even further at this point and bring in a more complete idea that we are the creators of the universe..Then everything changes and is not just flipped upon its head but entirley destroyed. And even if this is not true...... [and im leaning towards it in totallity]..then imagine how changed the world would be if this lovely idea  got to replace the current software that we are programed with. It seems that where our thinking is at the moment and has been for the past God knows how many millenia.We dont give a fuck ..We are independant from the world ,"we are divorced from the folk bodied blood of the land" (Sal Paradise) to put it very lightly ..

It is  a huge swing to percieve the world differently .The earth is flat and heaven is above the clouds.We know that it is not true now .Its impossible . So to believe that the world is born in us and not that we are born into the world. Is this the next evolutionary step ..?.I know that the majority would say that it is madness .But just hang out here , take this idea for a walk to the bottom of the vegie garden and out into the woodland ..I do know that the answer will not come in the traditional sense . We cannot get here via the mind .


wolfbird said:

I've mentioned this on several threads, but I'm constantly surprised how few people are interested...

I mean, it's kind of significant, isn't it ?

If our minds influence the physical world around us, and this can be proven by experimental demonstration, then just about everything that everybody thinks, about reality, life, the world, - whether they be ordinary folks, theologians, philosophers, scientists, or whatever - is, well... WRONG !




Hi Wolfbird ,

Thanks for the Kudos ..But it is not entirley deserved , the first paragraph of my writing actually comes from your old friend Peter Kingsley , and it was your link through this forum that put me on to reading him. This last couple of months has seen me on pretty much  a solitary diet of his writings and audio where and when i can find it ...This one is well worth a listen . 


When I wrote that little piece yesterday, it was in direct response ,to your almost challenge , that few people are interested in percieving the world differently, few people will respond to the possibility that they can influense the physical world .And this in itself  jolted the idea of just how stuck we are.

What Peter Kingsley has done for me , is to turn the world on its head, and i cant accept the norm anymore. What he suggests is that we start to percieve the world through our senses .Using them all at the same time. Now i have taken this little teaching for a walk over the last six weeks or so .And to my surprise somthing in me can hold it almost effortlessly , the mind comes in every now and again with its ideas about all that is percieved and its ideas about all that is not percieved. But it just seems to last for a few seconds minutes at the most , then i am back warm breeze on skin , tongue aware of the roof of my mouth , bare feet on red dirt .Bird song in all degrees of distance, a car back firing ,...

Now when this I live from this space, the only complete part of the world is all that is contained within my senses . The horizon of my sight,the furthest reaches of my hearing, the smell on the breeze, the touch of my skin .I would also say that perhaps there is another sense (maybe countless others) and that is to do with breathing in place . Icant be certain at this point , it is very quiet,and the centre of it is just below the diaphram  (dont ask me to explain this one it may take years). So with these senses and without using the second guessing and retrospect mode of the mind , the longing and the regret . Life becomes incredibly simple and also incredibly loud. Infact the best way to describe it is to picture a computer generated game that only exists on the screen, as you the player moves , so the world is formed or generated, however the player can only ever be at the centre of the game.

The sensations that arrive within this place seem to be created by myself, well that is not entirley true ,they all arise within me ,both within and as part of my senses , when i say i am the creator of them ,it is simply that there is no other thing , other one that exists to create . I am alone , and even the idea of I does not hold up well because it has no future and no past . I actually feel as if i have left  an important part of my brain in the forests of Scandinavia . ( i wish you could witness my laughter at this point .What a hillarious thought) So simply switching from mind chatter mode to sense mode the whole world has changed.

I have not seen angels as yet , i am alert to them , and i think that is a wonderfull example of Mad Edward it seems to me as if perception really is the glue that holds the world together or aven the vey fabric of the universe. and there would be countless nodes of perception,so to trust one and not another is foolish. 

Nowbriefly back to the mind . Perhaps i was a little hasty in dispelling the mind from the picture. What i should have said is that is not the normal rational part of the mind that can see this . That part of the mind is maybe normal but certainly not rational, it seems to be intent only on preserving itself ,on chasing after the next far off horizon or half forgotten dream so of course clear thinking can not originate from it . Wolf bird  I am new to this , but somthing has shifted here .Somthing has changed and it is to do with a more bodily state of perception . Ive thouroghly enjoyed the chance to put this experience on to the screen here. And i heartily recomend Peter Kingsleys writings to you .(And  i am  also incredibly gratefull  to you for putting me on to him , you put some great questions out into the world Wolfbird )

Go Well 

wolfbird said:

Thanks, Simeon, for making my day ! That's probably the most beautiful thing I have read on this forum so far :-)


Yes. All of our worldviews, our cultural belief systems, our economies and our sciences and our ethics, the whole lot, with a few minor exceptions ( various shamanic and esoteric schools perhaps ) are built upon fundamental premises and assumptions, that 'reality' or 'the world' operates in a certain fashion. These basic foundations date right back to the beginnings of the civilisations and have remained constant.


If they, i.e. those initial assumptions,  are shown, incontrovertibly, to be mistaken, then the whole edifice collapses, doesn't it ?


I'm not certain we have reached that stage quite yet. The area is so bewildering, it's not easy to puzzle out exactly what we have got.


I'm also more timid than you, re 'the creators of the universe'... it could be correct, or maybe, some other kind of weirdness ?... we don't even know how to think about this stuff, because all the old terminology becomes obsolete....


I think that we have to get there via the mind, in the sense that, we have to be able to explain to ourselves and to others, in accessible language, what this massive shift implies.... the old story disintegrates, suddenly it crumbles, it's a shock, like there is no Santa Claus, after all ? Then what ? We have to have a story, don't we ? Only the most advanced zen masters operate without any story, moving through nothingness without motive or purpose... for all the ordinary folk, there must be a story... the vast abyss is too terrifying... the story is a guide, a guard rail, giving meaning and ethics...


Long ago, in the locality where I lived, there was an old chap named Mad Edward, who went around the country lanes with his possessions loaded upon a bicycle. I never saw him ride it, it was just the conveyance upon which he stacked various bags, clothes, and whatnot. 

This man was well-known and described as crazy but harmless. A sort of tramp, who slept rough. I learned a little about him. Apparently, as a young man he was a farm labourer. One day, standing in a field, a host of angels had descended around him. He reported this event and was promptly dispatched into a mental hospital where he was confined and treated for a period, before his release. He never 'recovered' sufficiently to work and behave in a 'normal' fashion.


Consider this tale. What it says, is that the dominant prevailing social paradigm insists that descending angels are impossible. Such events are not supposed to happen. The conclusion is that, the event did not happen, and the man is in some way defective, deluded, suffering from a pathological aberration, which requires some medical intervention to be remedied.


But, for him, it was possible, it did happen. It was a dramatic, life-changing occurrence. Just that he was outnumbered by the rest of us, who live in a paradigm where such events are denied, because they don't match up with 'reality' as we are indoctrinated, by our culture, to understand it.


But what if he was right ? And everyone in the rest of the soceity was wrong ? Perhaps, if he just happened to be a very pure, innocent, uncomplicated individual, and met with some elevated state of consciousness, standing alone in a field, angels really did surround him ?


I mean, angels are usually described, historically, as beings of light. Indeed, I think all our godly words - divination, divine, deity, Zeus, Deus, diva, etc. - all spring from an ancient indo-european root which means 'shining one'... which could, of course, refer to sun, moon, stars, comets, but maybe also to other light-entities... in other words, thingees composed of photons... but now we discover that nothing is, except as energy, which manifests as particles or waves or both, and how that 'stuff' behaves comes down to us, the very condition psychologically, spiritually, emotionally of the perceiver, the level of our individual consciousness, which we can change, by an act of will.... although the majority don't understand that, and have not been taught how to do it, but there's plenty who do know, and can do it....


The plot appears to thicken, Ill have to read this tommorrow Wolfbird , Ive been out in the bush all weekend and am to exhausted read now . 

cheers Simeon 

Wow thats a facinating article Wolfbird .

Im glad i didnt try and read it last night in my exhausted state.So with sleep on my side and a gap of time ..

I think what it  reinforces is this feeling that i get , (and im speaking in a very  personal way here), that there is so much that lies behind . I want to go back to that feeling of expieriencing the world through the senses and not the mind .Now to have this direct and much more textured and imediate sense of the world is not a place that i have not felt before . As a child , i knew this place quite intimatly . So to return here , is to come full circle . However there is the begginings of somthing else that i notice in this place . It is true that the world is louder , more visual , tastier  and both smells and feels more intimate . 

But it is less real . It is a strange feeling , that even though my experience is deeper, and the edges of the felt world are sharper , in the strange way , that my  head cant quite get around , it is far more dream like than i have ever felt it before . I am hearing the ticking of the clock and Magpies talking in the trees. I can feel the typepad under my fingers , i could do with putting a jumper on . I have entered the world of perception , only to find that , well, i feel as if this is somthing that i should at some stage wake up from . not to return to the mind clatter , , but as if the sky will peel back and and reveal somthing all together different . 

Our  experience of the world , appears to be a collective one . as that article says "somthing that has been turned into one " It seems obvious that what we deduce from this lived life is our complete connectivity and our continuity. We see our children born and our elders die , If we are aware enough , we see our actions in the world and the consequences of our actions. How could we dare to believe other wise .

This morning I find myself in a complete state of i dont know , for truly i dont . That article has reinforced the perception that is starting to pick holes in the previouse hard edges to my  experience . 

" I have focused primarily on breaking the ideological chains of materialism that shackle the minds of scientists and the modern world at large. Dogmatism and closed-mindedness creep into science as they do into every other tradition of inquiry, and Buddhism is no exception. But among scientists and Buddhists, there are many who are truly open-minded and willing to question their most deeply rooted assumptions, in terms of both beliefs and valid methods of inquiry. With mutually respectful collaboration between scientists and contemplatives of all traditions—not just Buddhism—a true revolution in the mind sciences may be launched, with profound repercussions for biology, physics, and our view of the universe at large. Such individuals are our hope for the future."

This is all remarkable . Apparently , i have work to do outside, 


wolfbird said:


Clouds of Uncertainty

The materialists’ worldview is fundamentally rooted in physics, so before we invest too heavily in the belief that all biological and mental phenomena must be emergent properties of lifeless, unconscious matter, it would be worthwhile to assess where cutting-edge physics stands today. The field of quantum mechanics is the most fundamental branch of physics, with the deepest insights into the nature of matter and energy. In his recent book entitled Quantum, science writer Manjit Kumar cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the ninety respondents, only four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every undergraduate physics course in the world, thirty favored the “many-worlds interpretation” formulated by the Princeton theoretician Hugh Everett III (1930–82), and fifty replied, “none of the above or undecided.”2 The real implications of quantum physics seem to be hidden in a cloud of uncertainty.

To investigate more recent advances in physics and where it is headed, we may look to a conference held at Caltech at the beginning of 2010, the Physics of the Universe Summit, which was designed to set the research agenda for the rest of the twenty-first century. This was intended to provide a setting in which physicists from around the world could avoid “groupthink” and “be daring (even at the expense of being wrong),” according to the instructions of Maria Spiropulu, who organized the event. But the results were not what the organizers had in mind. Joseph D. Lykken of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, who helped coordinate the meeting, commented, “We’re confused, and we’re probably going to be confused for a long time.” Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona State, added that not only are most contemporary theories wrong, but most data are also wrong—at first—subject to glaring uncertain-ties. The recent history of physics, he said, is full of promising discoveries that disappeared because they could not be repeated.3 The mysteries surrounding the real meaning of quantum physics may be clarified only when the ideological shackles of scientific materialism are discarded and scientists come to grips with the role of consciousness and meaning in the universe."



The essential message is that there is not one absolutely real world out there, whether it is described by science or by any other discipline of inquiry. The human tendency throughout history has been to reify one from among multiple worlds of possibility, thereby conceiving of a “universe,” literally meaning something that has been “turned into one.” As long as we are caught up in human conceptual theories, we are confined to one anthropocentric view of reality after another. As James concluded, “Thought deals thus solely with surfaces. It can name the thickness of reality, but it cannot fathom it, and its insufficiency here is essential and permanent, not temporary.”There is a way to escape the limitations of the human intellect, but it requires us to leave thought behind. This brings us to the practice of meditation and to the possibility of transcending the worlds of illusion. With this in mind, I return to meditation and leave the last word to William James:

I think it may be asserted that there are religious experiences of a specific nature, not deducible by analogy or psychological reasoning from our other sorts of experience. I think that they point with reasonable probability to the continuity of our consciousness with a wider spiritual environment from which the ordinary prudential man . . . is shut off .9"




Well that just  beats any of your previous putdowns Wolfbird ... 

What  a great piece of writing

It deserves an award....I am serious ...

The slow build ,  a firm idea , that gentle stacking of ideas.

 It is an invocation , a sorcerers spell.

A wild fire ravaging the guts out of  the forest.

And when you deliver the last and fatal punch ...

You stand back and smile . 

My only wish is that you can wack me, with such a gloriously poetic openhanded slap ,

Should i ever not see the world as you ...

Dougald, Paul ,,,Somone make him playmate of the month , Its quite brilliant.


I am coming back to the subject , i just dont have the little mouth noises, to paint a true picture as yet. 

wolfbird said:

I replied :


I don't know about your problem re italic, bold, etc, I also have problems. Someone needs to tell the ning coders to sort this out. I told Dougald but nothing has happened. I space the paragraphs of my comment, but when I click 'add reply' the spaces vanish, so I am forced to add . or * to keep them. It is irritating.


Now, regarding your comment. At least you have given me this "In fact it is not know what the universe is made of.", so I don't dismiss you entirely as a hopeless case who wastes my time.


This is true. We don't know what the world, the planet, the Universe, or ANYTHING, is made of. We don't know what it is, or why it is. We don't know what we are, nor why we are.


So, what do we do ? We make up stories. We share these stories. We can't live in the raw reality, it is too frightening. So we cover it all up, with names and words and language and label everything. 


That doesn't mean that we have understood or explained anything. It just means we have assigned a label, like a bar code, - in Terence McKenna's cute phrase, ' a little mouth noise ', to everything that we can see as being obviously a discrete entity, stuff like sky, tree, house, fish, bear, stone, person, knife, wet, cold, up, down, etc, etc, etc.


And thus we construct meaning and orientate ourselves in the Abyss.


We've been doing that for a long time, probably several hundred thousand years. Then we invented writing, and got even better at it. 


Then we invented or discovered science, first with the ancient Greeks, then the Enlightenment, which was, or is, the same process but in a much more orderly and methodical way. As you said, empirical. Measure everything that can be measured. Weight it, test it, quantify everything within a rigorous recorded procedure, passing the records from generation to generation, refining and adding and improving all the time.


That scientific project has been immensely successful. We have discovered that we can actually find discernible patterns and logical connections. That is one of the most astonishing and fantastic discoveries of all time. It's not just chaotic stuff out there, there's fossils and the Periodic Table, and we can predict where a planet will be and when an eclipse will occur and that bacteria and viruses cause diseases, and so forth. It is magnificent !


The trouble is, in the wake of that success, we now have materialistic hubris and arrogance, which let's us forget, that the empirical project had to ignore everything that could not be measured. Which is a lot of it ! And, the scientific project forgets that it is still no more than a narrative, a story. It's just that it is a story where each element is supposed to be logically connected and based upon evidence.


So, we now have two classes of story. Logos, and mythos ( which you appear to call metaphysical beliefs ). 


And, because most humans are morons, and can't get their heads around anything more complicated than a football match, we are constantly witnessing people who insist that only logos is correct and worthwhile, or only mythos is correct and worthwhile. Hence Richard Dawkins versus the Fundamentalist Christian nutters. 


And you, bert louis, are just as bad. You want to see logos as superior, and exclude mythos. Which is insane, because if you reject mythos, you are rejecting pretty much all of art, poetry, painting, rock and roll, anything labelled spiritual, mystery, beauty, joy, laughter, fun, ecstasy, falling in love, all the stuff which, for many people, makes life tolerable and worth enduring. Not least, the exploration of magic and mysticism and esoteric wisdom.


You are the dreary, joyless, shrivelled accountant, sitting bent over his desk, for whom nothing exists except that which can be counted and entered into the ledgers.

Whilst outside, all the while, the birds are singing, flowers are blooming, and the children are skipping, lovers hold hands, and the vast awesome Abyss of the terrible Universe rolls along through its infinite and unfathomable mystery.


Like everyone else, all you are doing, bert, is telling yourself a story. But it's a tremendously dull, boring story. I have a far superior one, and you don't want to know it, because your absurd cultural blinkers filter it out and you prefer to live in your tiny miserable cage.


So, I lose patience with you. If that's how you want to be, if that's the full measure of your life and being, so be it.

I don't care. 

I don't suppose the Universe cares much either. It has spent - what is it, 15 billion or something ? - years since the Big Bang, or 4.5 thousand million years since the Earth began, to produce you, in this moment. A smelly, yawning, mumbling, clueless primate.... what a waste of time !




Great move Wolfbird, to relocate this logos/mythos thing!  Just shows we users do have some moderating powers of our own.

Did you just click 'Reply' and than paste the relevant posts as a new reply in this thread?

This was my comment:

WB: So, we now have two classes of story. Logos, and mythos ( which you appear to call metaphysical beliefs ).

Metaphysical believes are about meaning.
Knowledge is about unbiased truth.

Science, with all it's many branches, is about knowledge of the physical and natural world. It is about figuring out the rules that govern the material and natural world by using scientific methods.

But knowledge is clearly not enough for humans - we need some meaning too. This is where 'stories' come into play; to provide us with meaning. To make our actions .. our very lives meaningful.  Stories - narratives - are there to provide us with a context that we can individually relate to for our own lives, and to give our action meaning. To give us a reason to get out of bed and face an other day.  
But putting it like you do, throwing both knowledge and meaning together onto the same story heap, undermines the very distinction you want to make.

Using your terms I can put it like this:
So, we now have two classes of truth:  logos and mythos -  objective and subjective truth.

Logos is based on the empirical world, and applies to the physical world and all creatures regardless of their senses, and humans regardless of their culture or personal inspirational insights. 

Mythos solely applies to the human realm and is based on inspiration and faith.

WB: After all that reading (on the feral forum.) you still can write :

"Humanity facing it's apocalypse. Will she, I mean the 'logos,' be able to survive the energy crises and still be able to grow? If not I consider the human species to be a failure."

WB: Showing that you have understood nothing.

To understand nothing .... is that even possible?
OK, and what if I had written: "Will we,  I mean the logos/mythos unity ...."   instead of just 'logos.' Would your than have had the feeling that I understood your meaning better?

WB: This is true. We don't know what the world, the planet, the Universe, or ANYTHING, is made of. We don't know what it is, or why it is. We don't know what we are, nor why we are.

WB: So, what do we do ? We make up stories.

Very well, we are not directly aware (conscious) of what is going on inside and outside our body. We are not directly aware of the physical forces that govern matter and the universe at large; of the natural forces that shape the earth and it's biosphere.  Most (if not all) of the time we are not even directly aware of what we are saying.
By our memory we live (so to speak)  in stories. Our consciousness (I doubt if 'its' really ours,) is not biased to anything - it's nothing.  'It' (or no-thing, or X) is the inherent property of existence in my view. Why there is even anything at all is a mind boggling question, dangerous to ones health and ones will to live when seriously contemplate.  But not to worry, only very very few people get to that solipsistic level - although, by some of your writings, I get the feeling that you are not a stranger there.   

You make it clear  that it is of great importance to distinguish between logos and mythos - not to muddle these two. You have clarified the difference between logos and mythos by listing their properties, but you have not given a formal criterion, and that's what I'm after. Can I tempt you to think about that my love?  

Earlier we have spoken about this logos/mythos thing in the topic: ALL ABOARD THE ENTROPIC DEATH MACHINE. We seem to have a controversy going on - a misunderstanding in terms perhaps, maybe a fundamental  difference in lives philosophy? Or is it just that you get aggravated with me because I don't get you meaning?

Jesus Christ! Is you brain wired directly into this topic - into this forum?

Are you a Turing demon machine or a human being? (Joke on your super fast reaction :)

I get the impression that this is practically your forum and yours alone, and that you will do everything to keep it that way.

WB:  You have just written this story yourself, bert. If you want clear formal criteria why not analyse it yourself ?

I will think about that, thanks for the stimulus.

OK    Logos -Mythos .

Ive been following the thread, I havnt had time to listen to all the Bruce Lipton threads . Yes I find him facinating . He wrote the Biology of Belief , i believe . I read part of it whilst camping out one long weekend with friends . And since then have not had a chance to get my mits on it . 

I see  clearly that mythos and logos are two ways at looking at the world , at understanding our place within this all . Now the way that i understand it , a balanced  mind would very much swing (gently ) between these two world views ..

Mythos the awsome mystery  as we experience it . the magic of the felt world ...and ..

Logos the ability of our minds to carry this experience forward, reasoned argument , discussion and onwards into a world of fixed and undeceptive reality . 

For me Logos is a little like building an encampment around an experience , here the minds need to justify its place in the world. to set up a structure . Imagine the conquest of the West and  all the fortified enclosures , those little fort Apaches . Cavalrymen safe inside , whilst beyond the timber structure lies the wilds and all its possibilities , the dark and frightening forests ,the prowling savage ,the howl of the wolves , the screech of an owl . the frightening unexplained mystery of it all .

Now this is my mark in the sand , this is how i see Logos and Mythos

And the question has become , can we go past these two ways of seeing.Is there another way that perhaps lies behind these ways.

However at this point i want to bring in another idea .That of free will and necessity. 

Do we  have freewill ?, do we have choice? Are we just simple machines of predestination ? 

Is free will an illusion, and is the illusion of free will part of the cosmic necessity?

Im chucking this question in to the mix . Its somthing that i have carried around for a long time now , but see it as a great stepping stone in the understanding of who we are ? 

Any Ideas ? 

Excuse the time lapse of my reply Wolfbird.

I think both aproaches that we have here are very Koan  like.If there is a way of seeing the world that is neither logos or mythos , then we are left with the space of nothing to go on . We all hate this and would much rather believe in somthing , anything ...rather than nothing .

I wonder if logos and mythos mix . Ive got a good friend Simon  who can strip an engine down ,with such poetry of movement and intention , that I could swear he was writing a sonnet . Oddly enough the same fellow has this incredibly  heady approach to love . Its a plan , an instruction manual of the mind that he follows . Of course there is heart in there, But i often think that the heart gets the scraps in his case.

Then there is the choice connundrum . I allways love that look on Marcus du Sautoy 's face , he collapses on those steps and where can he go to ?Everything that he has known up untill that moment is cast into doubt . There is no escaping that dreadfull truth . Six seconds ....Its an eternity..

Id love to see more of those  type of experiments on free will . Yes/ no , is the black and white groove that humanity appears to be so stuck in . I wonder if the questioner  could al so be hooked up to a brain scanner.The neuro scientists would have to delve far deeper to determine the question before it was asked . 

My personal feelings on this is that , like you suggest the unconcious DOES know , the concious mind , at best can simply parrot  what the unconcious presents it with .That we as humans are absolutly lost in this great mystery , that  we struggle to explain it  all away . We think that we are in control . But that thinking is like the very tip of the nose of a rocket imagining that it is driving the rockets motion into space, whilst behind it lies several tiers of powerfull rocket thrusters.

Necessity is the thrusters , that incredible power that drives us forward and what can we do? nothing ....Co-operate  with necessity seems to be the only way . For to truly co-operate, is to be free. 

Its odd that as i type this it appears that total freedom is possible ......at the cost of total freedom...

I dont think that it is possible to beat the brain scanner , If the decision is made 6 seconds before, then everything would originate six seconds before including reflexes and the cause that  reflexes respond to . If this is also true then i suspect that we are well and truly up shit creek . Simeon, Wolfbird ,Pollyanna, we are all simply  ideas in the great matrix .. 

I love the spooky stuff . That hawk in slow motion is incredible . Thanks . 

Theres proberably more  to say . But thats it for now . 

Cheers . 


© 2016   Created by Dougald.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service