wazua Thu, Mar 19, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

12 Pages«<7891011>»
Tycho's account has been HACKED!!
Options
Previous Topic · Next Topic
tycho
#81 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:10:06 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Muriel wrote:
Before you move on to panpsychism, I say this:

There was an idea. It needed to be expressed. In whichever language, even sheng. By a quirk of providence English became the all inclusive language. Proper execution of this task (communication of the idea) would lead to a given result. The opposite also. But thanks to a large degree to the two gentlemen, the idea was and is misexpressed. The result is what you, I, we see - 'tounges'. Miscommunication.

The idea is not wrong, bad, or inappropriate or impractical. We are only stuck with the miscommunication that incidentally is so entrenched it has no cure save due diligence. Many by ease of read are however ensnared. I plead for due diligence from them.

Now what is panpsychism? I am interested.



Ah! Sorry. The idea. I kindly request you to express the idea. The panpsychism matter was an aside that appeared in my thought sequence. A slip of thought.

Please.
Back to top
  |
Muriel
#82 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:19:48 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142

It is 'Coming out of Babylon'

What is panpsychism?
Back to top
  |
tycho
#83 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:33:22 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Muriel wrote:

It is 'Coming out of Babylon'

What is panpsychism?


Please explain what you mean using the Westcott example. Let panpsychism wait.
Back to top
  |
symbols
#84 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:57:55 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:
I can think of some reasons that could make one averse to a 'new idea'. A good reason for aversion could be the unfitness of an idea to a problem being solved, or interest. Another reason could be a failure in communication.

As for now, I can't find this new idea you're talking about. Could you care to show it?


Muriel wrote:
Yes.

But being averse to a certain idea should not cloud one's mind to the overall objective benefits and niceties to be accrued from that idea. Miscommunication often leads to incorrect understanding of the idea, rendering (mis)implementation of the idea in (mis)solving a problem more problematic.

I had mentioned some 2 gentlemen a Mr. Prescott and a Mr. Hort but by no means the only ones. They introduced, in my opinion, a miscommunication, a failure in communication, that has made well meaning and respectable citizens reject and become averse to an otherwise excellent idea. The likes of H.M Stanley while in pursuit of providing 'solutions', excelled this miscommunication and aggravated the situation and provided no solution to speak of.

I am appealing for due diligence to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


You can share information.You can share knowledge.How does one go about sharing understanding and appreciation of that understanding?
Back to top
  |
Muriel
#85 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:41:07 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
tycho wrote:


Please explain what you mean using the Westcott example. Let panpsychism wait.


Very well.

Mark's gospel depicts its subject as a very action-oriented individual of action. e.g.

a) he walks on water - action
b) gives assurance that certain things will be done in his name - actions
c) heals a blind man without speaking to him - action
d) calms the storm - action

The others depict their respective starrings as:
Matthew - the messiah, the king
Luke - the compassionate, the humanity
John - the divine, the son of God

Wescott and Hort, in narrating the starring of Mark, omits one action - where the starring describes another action, that of Daniel. It may seem innocuous, little, trifling, but in the context that the action of Daniel is in the context of actions of the man of actions the reader is should be struck with the idea of referring back to Daniel for more elaborate study. The loss of this reinforcement stimuli (miscommunication) hence is detrimental to the overall understanding of the idea. Confusion. Babylon.

The story is Mark 13:14. Comparisons can be made with the gentlemen's versions and others.

I cannot wait for panpsychism.
Back to top
  |
tycho
#86 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:02:40 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
I can think of some reasons that could make one averse to a 'new idea'. A good reason for aversion could be the unfitness of an idea to a problem being solved, or interest. Another reason could be a failure in communication.

As for now, I can't find this new idea you're talking about. Could you care to show it?


Muriel wrote:
Yes.

But being averse to a certain idea should not cloud one's mind to the overall objective benefits and niceties to be accrued from that idea. Miscommunication often leads to incorrect understanding of the idea, rendering (mis)implementation of the idea in (mis)solving a problem more problematic.

I had mentioned some 2 gentlemen a Mr. Prescott and a Mr. Hort but by no means the only ones. They introduced, in my opinion, a miscommunication, a failure in communication, that has made well meaning and respectable citizens reject and become averse to an otherwise excellent idea. The likes of H.M Stanley while in pursuit of providing 'solutions', excelled this miscommunication and aggravated the situation and provided no solution to speak of.

I am appealing for due diligence to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


You can share information.You can share knowledge.How does one go about sharing understanding and appreciation of that understanding?


Understanding can only be shared if there's a system of perception and knowledge generation, and communication, that allows for diversity and conflict, and free choice. To share understanding is becoming 'God'.

@Muriel, there's the book of Mark, there's the book of the dead, there are many books, whether we like it or not.

Why do people write? Why speak?
Back to top
  |
symbols
#87 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:15:05 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
I can think of some reasons that could make one averse to a 'new idea'. A good reason for aversion could be the unfitness of an idea to a problem being solved, or interest. Another reason could be a failure in communication.

As for now, I can't find this new idea you're talking about. Could you care to show it?


Muriel wrote:
Yes.

But being averse to a certain idea should not cloud one's mind to the overall objective benefits and niceties to be accrued from that idea. Miscommunication often leads to incorrect understanding of the idea, rendering (mis)implementation of the idea in (mis)solving a problem more problematic.

I had mentioned some 2 gentlemen a Mr. Prescott and a Mr. Hort but by no means the only ones. They introduced, in my opinion, a miscommunication, a failure in communication, that has made well meaning and respectable citizens reject and become averse to an otherwise excellent idea. The likes of H.M Stanley while in pursuit of providing 'solutions', excelled this miscommunication and aggravated the situation and provided no solution to speak of.

I am appealing for due diligence to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


You can share information.You can share knowledge.How does one go about sharing understanding and appreciation of that understanding?


Understanding can only be shared if there's a system of perception and knowledge generation, and communication, that allows for diversity and conflict, and free choice. To share understanding is becoming 'God'.



Could you explain?I fail to understand.
Back to top
  |
tycho
#88 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:33:54 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
@symbols, take any two parties, being two implies that they are part of a larger set of parties. Or ideas, or sets.

A relation between two sets implies a third set. Understanding is consciousness of the third set. Like two interacting circles in Euclidean space. Understanding is Euclidean geometry in this case.
Back to top
  |
symbols
#89 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:37:10 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
Thank you.
Back to top
  |
Muriel
#90 Posted : Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:45:20 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
symbols wrote:
Thank you.


I am not content.
Back to top
  |
12 Pages«<7891011>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Wazua Club SK Theme
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2009, Yet Another Forum.NET
Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.