Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 21-09-2007

Plenty of high strangeness today. Or maybe I’m just getting a fever. You decide.

Thanks Kat and Rick.

Quote of the Day:

Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced.

John Keats

Editor
  1. So, X_O…
    [quote=X_O]Even further off topic, what is your (and Kat, too) take on Castañeda’s work regarding whether it is autobiographical in any significant way or merely well written fiction?[/quote]
    .

    Did you ever read my reply?

    Kat

    1. Sure did!
      Hi Kat,

      By the time I made it back to the discussion, it was falling off the end of the page. I think you and Red did a terrific job of revisiting CC’s work.

      The only thing I can contribute, given the years since reading Carlos, is the philosophical point of whether we, as readers, should care whether the inspirations derived from authors are from (openly declared) fictional accounts or are in some way fact based. (However much fact may be hard to define in the non-ordinary realms.) For instance, I derived tremendous value from that little book, Illusions by Bach. That was clearly a fictional story.

      On the other hand, as I have mentioned before, I have great respect for Robert Monroe’s works which are apparently fact based. So, if Castenada and Monroe are both claiming truth or a factual basis for their efforts, are we diminished in our quests by being deceived by an author’s false claim.

      In our shared realms of the fringe pursuits here at TDG, it is always a challenge to sift the wheat/chaff at least with respect to our own personal goals. We don’t often have the benefit of the hard sciences to validate theories — only our gut reactions. In that context, Carlos had my attention in the early works even if he was pretty far out there. But, as he moved on, it became ever harder to buy-in to his story. (I think RPJ had a similar comment.)

      To come at the point from a different direction, many of the DMT and ayahuasca travellers share some amazing experiences — even if they are not entirely identical. For as reality-tearing as these experiences are, there is an underlying fabric that appears consistent. I never found anyone else that conveyed the experiences Carlos described.

      On a separate note, I am reading Strieber’s 2012 as well as the ‘debate’ w/ Pinchbeck. This is another area where fact/fiction blur a bit. Strieber differentiates his fact/fiction books overtly even though there is some continuity across the boundary. Whether or not one subscribes to his ‘facts’ is at least something that is comparable with others who claim similar experiences.

      Lastly, Celestine Prophecies was great for lots of little insights while being pretty lame as literature. However, there was little chance for it being taken literally.

      Cheers,
      Xavier Onassis

  2. No matter what the result,
    No matter what the result, the ambivalence/dismissal of authorities to reports of people getting sick, from contact with an extraterrestrial object, raises some serious concerns with me.

    Spot on Greg. It’s very, very disturbing how dismissive and ambivalent scientists/experts have been — despite the evidence. People have been hospitalised, there are medical records, doctor testimonies — yet the experts sit in their cushy offices and look down their noses and sniffily dismiss the facts. Granted, Peru isn’t the USA or Australia, but still — questions need to be asked of the health authorities why it hasn’t been taken more seriously. Possibly because the meteorite is only affecting native peasants in a remote region — no one gives a shit about those people.

  3. Meteorite and authorities
    [quote]No matter what the result, the ambivalence/dismissal of authorities to reports of people getting sick, from contact with an extraterrestrial object, raises some serious concerns with me.[/quote]

    The life of the skeptic. Evidence is relevant when it fits the dogma.

    One thing most prone to fights and wars are truths, beliefs that represent the maximum possible level of the psychological impression of personal competence an individual can achieve, which if examined from the whole scale of consciousness would definitely lead to a realization of incompetence.

    People fight for the limit of their ignorance and that limit is truth.

    1. meteorite & authorities?
      [quote=Richard]One thing most prone to fights and wars are truths, beliefs that represent the maximum possible level of the psychological impression of personal competence an individual can achieve, which if examined from the whole scale of consciousness would definitely lead to a realization of incompetence.[/quote]

      As the caveman in the Geico ad so aptly says, ‘Uhhh… What ???

      Kat

      1. Ugh!
        Thanks for waking me up Kat.

        What I meant is that truths are not what they seem. They are limits. They are the limit of what a mind can accept and do not represent reality.

        Because they are at the edge of what someone can accept, being the best organization an intellect can assimilate for himself or the highest vibrating intuition the soul can accept, they are perceived as some sort of absolutes.

        In that sense, they are for each individual the maximum possible level or the impression of personal competence that the psychological person can achieve relative to himself.

        Such perception allows ideologies to be born and people will fight for their ideologies, wage war to impose their truth.

        But in reality, these truths are of such limited and such limitative scales that they are fields of incompetence rather than fields of competence.

        These truths, if looked at from the vantage of a greater encompassing consciousness would be considered as having been incompetent even if before, while that truth held, it was at the limit of the psychological competence.

        Hope this helped clarify a bit.

  4. Mars Water
    I too am getting a little tired of the whole “water, no water, water, no water” roller coaster. Why can’t they just make a decision by committee about the Mars climate, call it fact by consensus, and be done with it? That seems to be the acceptable method for drawing conclusions about Earth’s climate.

    1. Because
      [quote=Anonymous] Why can’t they just make a decision by committee about the Mars climate, call it fact by consensus, and be done with it? .[/quote]

      Because science should never be dealt with the way politics deals with their business. Science is not democracy, it doesn’t matter if the majority believes something as fact, and therefore the dissenting voices should be silenced.

      That was the way the Ptolemaic view of the Geocenthric cosmic model prevailed for so many centuries with the support of the Church. Luckily there were a few people who dared to disagree because of the evience they have gathered.
      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

    2. then you don’t know what science is
      science is not about “yes, no” or “true, false” or “black and white”. Science is the philosophy of ideas, what ifs, and best guesses. It’s about open minded thought about the truth with out any interference from language, politics, or religion which muck it up.

      1. Science
        Good morning everyone,
        Well said, Pragmatous, this is indeed what science SHOULD be, but rarely is. Because science is done by humans, it contains their prejudices and fears. And there are so many subjects they should research, but don’t.

        I’m fanatical about moderation

        Anthony North

      2. Really?
        Gee, I’ll remember that the next time I need major surgery, precise medication, board a shuttle to Mars or argue in favor of my “best guesses” about a whole range of very black and white scientific facts.

        You really need to practice a little bit of that open-minded and realize that science is just as much about facts as it is about theory. After all, ideas, what ifs and best guesses are just steps in the scientific endeavor to uncover truths. So don’t muck it up with high minded philosophical rantings.

        One of us knows what science is, but don’t take my word for it. Just open a dictionary:

        Sci-ence (noun)
        1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
        2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
        3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
        4. systematized knowledge in general.
        5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
        6. a particular branch of knowledge.
        7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
        _________________________________

      3. Damn…
        The more I read your post, the dumber is sounds. Science is not about facts (yes/no, black/white, etc.)??!!

        Ideas of politics, religion, culture, etc. are exactly the things that screw up science as people try to use those things to form and shape the facts to fit certain molds.

        What ifs and best guesses are used as theoretical tools, but the goal of science is to discover unassailable facts and truths.

        The very definition of science that you are advocating is the very cause of the problem that you think you are addressing. Thinking such as yours isn’t the solution to the problems in our scientific communities, but the cause.

        You couldn’t more wrong if you tried.

        1. Facts
          There are facts and there are facts. It seems to be a fact that things that fall will hit the ground, but is this a fact of Newtonian gravity? No, not really. It used to be, but now science is looking for the real reason.
          Facts are facts, but many facts are only facts by virtue of a theory to account for them. Facts are facts, but are often ignored if there isn’t a theory that will take them into account.
          Facts can often be opinions, but if they fit the theory they become facts. Facts are sometimes facts, sometimes not. Sometimes facts that used to be facts have become fallacy because science has moved on. And the central fact is that the very nature of science should be that a fact cannot be an absolute fact.

          Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

          Anthony North

          1. Oh, is THAT a fact?
            You might as well be a politician explaining what the true meaning of “is” is. LOL

            “And the central fact is that the very nature of science should be that a fact cannot be an absolute fact.”

            Is that an absolute fact?

          2. Facts
            Anonymous said:

            ‘Is that an absolute fact?’

            Of course not. It’s always open to debate – to be disproved.
            I’m waiting …

            ….

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

  5. Hello everyone
    If I may, I think we are all really saying the same thing, but in such a way as to cause some conflict.

    Science is about facts, about observable phenomena that ocurr in the realm of Nature, and how to best interpret them in a way as to make sense inside and ordered set of rules.

    Now, my personal opinion is that such an interpretation will always be an approximation; new ideas will come to improve and perfect an existing theory, or debunking it entirely.

    This process (of perfecting or proposing new theories) I think should not be made in the form of a comittee or a consensus. It should not be about what the majority prefers to accept or who has the strongest charisma to gain people’s support.

    That is politics. You do not put into a vote whether we should accept if 2+2=4 do we?

    A theory holds itself and overcomes the passage of time when it’s capable of
    a)taking everything related to it into account (not discarding those pesky little things that are not explained by the theory), and
    b)making validated predictions based on its assumptions. There are other things of course, like it has to be falsifiable, but right now let’s keep this simplified shall we.

    As an example, the physicists who support String Theory as the best way to reconcile Relativity with Quantum mechanics have, unfortunately, yet to come up with accurate predictions that can further confirm the validity of this elegant and aestethically appealing mathematical theory.

    That is not reason to trump the theory entirely, not yet at least…

    My 2 cents on the subject, from a guy who admits not to have a formal scientific background 😉

    PS: I’m rooting for the general acceptance of water on Mars btw, but I admit science does not always move as rapidly as we would like.

    PPS: Oh and pragmatous, just so you know, I think that some of the greatest things about us humans is our capacity to come up with best guesses and what ifs. In fact, in other forums I get flamed for minding to much on the what ifs that in the what is. Every theory that I can think of began with a what if, but as I wrote early, the validty of those theories must later be tested.
    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

    1. Facts and observations
      I agree that science wants to work with facts. There is nothing wrong with science per say, sometimes there may be something wrong with where certain scientists establish theories to be facts.

      Facts are observed phenomena untainted with subjective interpretation. As soon as the phenomena is interpreted subjectively, a value results from it and it is inserted into a categorial system of thoughts.

      It is where science limits itself by denying the phenomena any possible reality other than the category assigned to it by an interpretation that is framed in a set of arbitrary laws that cannot take influences other than the known into consideration.

      This is understandable and does not make science useless. What it does though is create a virtual limit on what science can know to give it a deductive function.

      Scientific pride then takes over to claim that there is nothing above science and that all that is not within the categories it has defined are non subjects.

      I will always be surprised at people that put science down as I will always be surprised at scientists that proclaim science, as it is on this planet in this day and age, is the end of the end in its form. Take note that I did not say is the end of the end in what it can deduce in time.

      As science enters a new paradigm, it will develop new ways of investigating reality that will not be based on deduction but on the observation of the cause rather than force the result of deductions severed from the unobserved cause to create apparent scientific truths. Then science will not be talking about theories but will apply laws as they really apply and there will be a greater sense of consequences in these applications.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal