Realism and the Existence of Nothing

[labelwench]

those that think in words are domesticated

those that think in pictures are untrained

half the world statistically are domesticated word thinkers and the other are not as the primal state of exist

just a thought or two

kind regards graham

Are you able to elaborate on these statements further, Graham?

The process of thought, and then communicating those thoughts, is an interesting one to me. When I am reading the written word, I am able to visualize the words in my head, unless I have no frame of reference for the subject under discussion. Likewise, when I am listening to someone speak, where words are reinforced by tone and body language.

When I perceive something that is visual, I find that my mind quickly becomes occupied with storing both the visual image, for recall, and the elements of interest in the form of words and emotional impressions.

As for thoughts that 'just occur to me' quite often my first impression is an emotion, which my brain then offers me alternating images and word bites as my mind attempts to reconcile the 'parts' into something coherent that can be examined and tested from various approaches.

Right now, my mind is trying to 'flat-line' on me. Too much work on too little sleep, lol, and one can only go to the 'quantum well' so many times before the biological component of this unit requires recalibration. When the sled dogs display no appetite, they have expended more energy than they can reclaim. I can still visualize food, although I have to concentrate to do so, so it's time to shut it down.

Thoughts......where do they come from.....and why.......

Some are in answer to a question, to solve a puzzle or a challenge.

Others don't seem to tie on to anything of immediate notice.

Some thoughts are hard to hold, while others are hard to shake...

Awareness, pictures, words, patterns, confusion, alternates, choices, decisions.......

[G_burnett]

Are you able to elaborate on these statements further, Graham?

The process of thought, and then communicating those thoughts, is an interesting one to me. When I am reading the written word, I am able to visualize the words in my head, unless I have no frame of reference for the subject under discussion. Likewise, when I am listening to someone speak, where words are reinforced by tone and body language.

When I perceive something that is visual, I find that my mind quickly becomes occupied with storing both the visual image, for recall, and the elements of interest in the form of words and emotional impressions.

As for thoughts that 'just occur to me' quite often my first impression is an emotion, which my brain then offers me alternating images and word bites as my mind attempts to reconcile the 'parts' into something coherent that can be examined and tested from various approaches.

Right now, my mind is trying to 'flat-line' on me. Too much work on too little sleep, lol, and one can only go to the 'quantum well' so many times before the biological component of this unit requires recalibration. When the sled dogs display no appetite, they have expended more energy than they can reclaim. I can still visualize food, although I have to concentrate to do so, so it's time to shut it down.

Thoughts......where do they come from.....and why.......

Some are in answer to a question, to solve a puzzle or a challenge.

Others don't seem to tie on to anything of immediate notice.

Some thoughts are hard to hold, while others are hard to shake...

Awareness, pictures, words, patterns, confusion, alternates, choices, decisions.......

Giving word to the picture is a two way street. The picture without the word … good or bad … is the scary self defeating exist and not living domesticated as you might be in relativity to … right, … you and who you tamed. Those then with the word given to a picture are as tamed as that which they tamed. When you name all the beasts in the field you have power over them because you know there name … bad or good. The picture thinker acts objectively.
This is a different way. It gives no matter to good or bad just exist. The two have been at war ever since some idiot gave word to the picture. Now we all have to think.
It is a hell for picture thinkers because they get to objectives first and always win. Doing this is despite the good or bad so some get mad and are always backs shooting them from being left behind.
Word thinkers have it rough too. They always eventually realise they are second to some one … that’s a real psssoff … they only win half the time and that’s why there are still picture thinkers. They would be all shot long ago and I would not have to elaborate like this.
What I said about half-and-half is a statistical fact. You ask half the world if they picture a tree as t-r-e-e the word or a picture perhaps of a favourite tree and that half would say T_R_E_E and the other asked say a picture.
The Word T_R_E_E does not look like any tree I have ever seen in my well-traveled life any where on any continent I have been on.
The word thinkers are domesticated and tamed persona that once were picture thinkers … and … could not handle being a picture thinker. They were lazy or weak or inbred so much they had no viable real objectives … they got nowhere as a picture thinker.
Nah, … come on now, quit your laughing, I am serious.
Ok … until you all stop laughing at me I will post no more.
Kind regards, graham,

[labelwench]

Giving word to the picture is a two way street. The picture without the word … good or bad … is the scary self defeating exist and not living domesticated as you might be in relativity to … right, … you and who you tamed. Those then with the word given to a picture are as tamed as that which they tamed. When you name all the beasts in the field you have power over them because you know there name … bad or good. The picture thinker acts objectively.
This is a different way. It gives no matter to good or bad just exist. The two have been at war ever since some idiot gave word to the picture. Now we all have to think.
It is a hell for picture thinkers because they get to objectives first and always win. Doing this is despite the good or bad so some get mad and are always backs shooting them from being left behind.
Word thinkers have it rough too. They always eventually realise they are second to some one … that’s a real psssoff … they only win half the time and that’s why there are still picture thinkers. They would be all shot long ago and I would not have to elaborate like this.
What I said about half-and-half is a statistical fact. You ask half the world if they picture a tree as t-r-e-e the word or a picture perhaps of a favourite tree and that half would say T_R_E_E and the other asked say a picture.
The Word T_R_E_E does not look like any tree I have ever seen in my well-traveled life any where on any continent I have been on.
The word thinkers are domesticated and tamed persona that once were picture thinkers … and … could not handle being a picture thinker. They were lazy or weak or inbred so much they had no viable real objectives … they got nowhere as a picture thinker.
Nah, … come on now, quit your laughing, I am serious.
Ok … until you all stop laughing at me I will post no more.
Kind regards, graham,

Actually, Graham, what you are writing is of great interest to me, and I only regret that I did not read this post first, before I gave my parting shot on another thread, which one you can well guess. To you and a few others, I do apologize for my lapse in form on occasion. I desire to speak with individuals who can hold more than one perspective in their mind at one time, and not be angered if the points of view contradict one another.

To judge neither one more to be held in esteem than the other, and that any and all perspectives, be they not intentionally injurious to another, to be worthy of fair conversation and examination. Though I cannot always fathom your scientific knowledge, I hold your manner of respectful communication, in high esteem.

Thank you for this post and I hope that you will offer more.

[G_burnett]

nobody ever in forum has died Anna ,,, they did when they were out of forum .. Cesar, Socrates .. they all died out of the forum ..

my knowledge come from a few rules i laid down for myself. this was not because i needed to but because i wanted to do so.

judging is not something i can afford to do. I became a father and thus in real love for my kids i can not project my judgments on them as they have the right to judge.

so i have better objectivity as love and hate are only two sides of a coin they form and the name of the coin is called awareness.

I could only picture that coin in objectivity.

yea yea key word awareness. ... hey read my signature.

you postulated and i responded as only one should be in a forum .. a gentleman

its fun.

kind regards graham

[labelwench]

One of the things that I am pondering at present, in view of the activity on some of the threads of late, and also to an e-mail at work last night, is how and why one can have such an emotional response to what is mere words on a screen or paper?

Of the forum folk, I have met none of you face to face, although some I have communicated with more than others. At work, I see the people four days a week for 18 months now, so know them as people and fellow co-workers.

Yet my response to the message of one I have never met, is on par with the response to one I know of, through this medium.

It is the words that beget the response.

While the context of whom is stating the words is also of import, I must now come at this observed phenomenon with a different thought.

Why should the words of someone that I have never met be capable of having such effect? This is not only when they are directed at me, but when they are directed at others. I feel the joy and the pain, of the exchanges, sometimes too much so.

I read plenty of books, watch little television or video beyond the music that I post here, and listen to the radio to and from work. Music evokes a response, but the rest is just 'information' and no matter how provocative the topic, still only registers as such.

Grandfather always said that the word, once spoken, could not be called back.

One may apologize and the other accept the apology, but once the harm has been done, the scar is always there.

What gives words their power over us?

Why do some people seem able to shrug it all off as good fun, and others feel such pain, sorrow and alienation?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lorrina, you have brought up probably the most profound question about what we are all stumbling around in; "...how and why one can have such an emotional response to what is mere words on a screen or paper?" I thought about this very subject so deeply when I first started posting back in probably the mid `90's, shortly after getting on the web. I could not believe the fearful emotions generated in me by this new forum, and just as you say; "how and why?" through the years, I've become more immune to it, but it still has a powerful emotional power all its own, far more powerful, to me anyway, than even does that of real people. Is it the idea that the whole world may be able to see us, and we simply have a tremendous world stage-fright...?__I don't know, but I do agree, the psychology of this is probably the most interesting new field of study, that may be happening__but until you mentioned it, I'd never really thought of speaking about it. Maybe others have, but I've never seen it mentioned. All I know is, it's an extremely huge power over us, at times__and other times it just rolls off like water off a duck's back__but, I can tell you that in the beginning, I was petrified, angry, abusive beyond belief, at times flaming to no end__and couldn't figure out why this new electronic medium made us act in ways we never would in public. I was and am always diplomatic in public, but on the web I used to be a demonic grizzly actor__but why, I never knew. Some of it is freedom of actions never being physically punishable, I think, but the public furry is still a mystery. Could it be because our intellect is being nakedly exposed to other's emotional denigration, and our emotional senses are being overly exposed to other's harsh intellects, in ways that would never happen in public, because we have our eyes and ears to guide us and pre-protect us...? That seems the most likely, as we are completely defenseless, and when we and our friends put out the feelings, into a public forum, and others crush them, a part of us is crushed in turn, even if it's our extended emotional and intellectual selves__I'm just guessing here, as best as I can remember the beginnings of posting in the really violent flaming days, and thinking about it, a lot of those people are still posting, along with the more mild and moderated modern era of forum etiquettes' newer generations.

My experience of it is that the more the younger and older newer posters entered, they were endowed with the emotional and intellectual tools to reduce the older era's flamers with a new web protocol, which through their shear brilliance destroyed the older flaming order, but at the same time compressed all our actions into a political correctness, that is all pervading, yet not necessarily anything good, from the aspect of trapping emotions and intellects into a narrow response imprisoning language, one must learn anew every year to negotiate__and it ain't easy__it's just shear adrenalized challenging__And our innate being loves adrenaline challenges__Yet, this field of competition, even if one isn't competing, forces one to become overly involved in the competition__thus becomming emotionally and intellectually over-invested in the processes creating the adrenaline rushes, which are also countered by their inevitable opposites of deep downside encounters and pain__Then we naturally look for the next dose of upside rush. That's all I can figure right now__but it's a very interesting subject... Just as another note along these lines about it being a subject not yet explored, back in the `70's, I thought the most important accomplishment for advancing society, at a level I then could influence, would have been to do an anthropological and sociological study of all the musicians' lyrics, as I found so many of them so profound at that time__some of them I still do__but neither I nor anyone else has followed up on such an obviously needed study, at least Imo...

One of the things that I am pondering at present, in view of the activity on some of the threads of late, and also to an e-mail at work last night, is how and why one can have such an emotional response to what is mere words on a screen or paper?

Of the forum folk, I have met none of you face to face, although some I have communicated with more than others. At work, I see the people four days a week for 18 months now, so know them as people and fellow co-workers.

Yet my response to the message of one I have never met, is on par with the response to one I know of, through this medium.

It is the words that beget the response.

While the context of whom is stating the words is also of import, I must now come at this observed phenomenon with a different thought.

Why should the words of someone that I have never met be capable of having such effect? This is not only when they are directed at me, but when they are directed at others. I feel the joy and the pain, of the exchanges, sometimes too much so.

I read plenty of books, watch little television or video beyond the music that I post here, and listen to the radio to and from work. Music evokes a response, but the rest is just 'information' and no matter how provocative the topic, still only registers as such.

Grandfather always said that the word, once spoken, could not be called back.

One may apologize and the other accept the apology, but once the harm has been done, the scar is always there.

What gives words their power over us?

Why do some people seem able to shrug it all off as good fun, and others feel such pain, sorrow and alienation?

I think a possible answer to this last question, may be the simple length of time one has, experiencing all the many real and possible web exchanges, but then again, some with far less experience, than I, seem to handle the medium much better than I, so it's still something else__Maybe the web purging of all our childhood demons__The web being an electronic psychiatrist...?

[labelwench]

Thank you for such a well-thought response, Lloyd.

Having slept for a few hours and in an 'in-between ' frame of mind, just up to water horses and then have to crash again or I'll be in trouble tonight.....

Energy.

All ideas are energy.

Formulating and exchanging them utilizes huge energy.

Emotions are likewise energy.

These various exchanges of energy (ideas) within our mind, affect our brain and body in a way that we as yet do not understand.

I have experienced some phenomenal states while participating in extreme endurance events, both physical and psychological.

Jokingly, (or maybe not) I would call it traveling the 'quantum highway'.

When the energies do not encounter resistance, they travel great distance with positive effect.

When the energies are negative, great amounts are expended, and the effect is exhausting and debilitating.

In some cases, the expenditure may be deemed worthwhile, and necessary to an understanding gained.

Wick's comments, that we are beings of light, electro-magnetic beings comes to mind, and the principles of attraction and repulsion of magnets observed back in grade school comes to the fore of my mind, only now I picture the magnets as people, or at least their perspectives, and how they may relate, or not relate, to the frameworks of the life experiences of others.

This planet is such a vast and marvelous place that when you take the experiencing of it, particularly from persons living in the most remote parts of the globe, and each of them not much traveled, were you to compare their life stories, they would be vastly different, yet there would be an overlap in some of life's experiences common to all everywhere, no matter the rituals by which we surround them.

The patterns are repeated everywhere, they just express as different forms....

With apologies if I am not making much sense, yet I suspect your framework is broad enough to allow you to fill in the gaps.

Later.....