Heidegger (beware-relatively heavy talk!)

quote:

De grap is dan namelijk dat alles wat via de zintuigen binnenkomt en daarna evenwel opgepikt wordt door het bewustzijn in eerste instantie gevormd wordt "voor" het bewuste. Het oermotief is het sjabloon van hetgeen het onbewuste al op een eigen manier binnen krijgt. Dus een dubbele destructie van het transcendente of een interpretatie ervan. Er is 1 oermotief maar er zijn meerdere input mogelijkheden

quote:

Op donderdag 20 april 2006 19:56 schreef Boswachtertje het volgende:
Ikzelf ben bezig in de Filosofie van de Vrijheid van Rudolf Steiner en ik bemerk toch een aardige overlap qua ideeën (nou is Steiner natuurlijk ook van een latere generatie..).

quote:

Op woensdag 12 april 2006 13:24 schreef 0d1n het volgende:

[..]

Wat ik hiermee "wil"?

Aha, nou bijvoorbeeld een aantal controversiele standpunten in nemen of beter gezegd "impliciet ter discussie stellen". Maar dit is "wFl" dus ik neem aan dat menig (aspirant) filosoof/theoloog zo een aantal dingen ziet waar hij het NIET mee eens is!

Maar als iemand een "paar" vragen heeft, stel ze gerust, ik elaboreer graag..

quote:

Op donderdag 20 april 2006 20:30 schreef rekenwonder het volgende:
Leuke verhaaltjes schreef die gast, je moet alleen wel even door het racistische karakter heen prikken en het in het licht van die tijd zien.

quote:

Op donderdag 20 april 2006 20:33 schreef alien8ed het volgende:
Begin eens met de tekst te herschrijven tot leesbare taal.
Misschien is alles wat je geschreven hebt voor jou helder als cup-a-soup, mijn hoofd doet pijn alleen al na een poging jou tekst te ontcijferen.
Het is mij dan ook totaal niet duidelijk geworden welke "controversiele standpunten" je impliciet ter discussie wilt stellen.
Gebruik svp iets minder overbodige tussenvoegsels en vorm leesbare zinnen.
In plaats van te elaboreren kun je gewoon uitleggen wat je bedoelt.

Ik ben graag bereid discussies aan te gaan en advocates devil te spelen om discussies interessant te houden, maar ik ben niet van plan daar nog meer hoofdpijn aan over te houden.

quote:

Op donderdag 20 april 2006 20:44 schreef Boswachtertje het volgende:

[..]

[..]
De mens heeft een cultuur geschapen, waarin de buitenwereld als echte wereld wordt gezien, die los staat van de individu. Ze proberen iets te bereiken in die buitenwereld (tegenwoordig dmv materalisme), terwijl ze hun innerlijke wereld niet of nauwelijks aandacht geven. Het idee van Heidegger is, dat je het bewustzijn hebt dat een bepaalde input van zintuigen krijgt. Echter is deze input gecreëerd voor het bewustzijn, weer vanuit het onderbewuste. Je ervaart dus een moment via de input van je zintuigen, terwijl je de input zelf al vanuit je onderbewuste hebt gestuurd. Echter zoeken wij de oorzaak buiten onszelf, waardoor wij het ene oermotief telkens weer mislopen. Terwijl het altijd al aanwezig is, in onszelf.

quote:

Op donderdag 20 april 2006 21:33 schreef alien8ed het volgende:
De mens is van nature onderzoekend, dat is vastgelegd in onze genen.
Helaas hebben die zelfde genen ernstige gebreken en zorgen voor grove imperfecties.
Alles wat we van de realiteit ervaren wordt door de beperkingen van onze zintuigen gefilterd en door ons bewustzijn en onderbewustzijn verwerkt en geinterpreteerd.
Zelfs van wat we wel zien, horen en ruiken wordt slechts een zeer klein gedeelte daadwerkelijk verwerkt door de hersenen, waarvan we een nog kleiner deel echt bewust zijn.

quote:

De buitenwereld is volgens mij echter de enige echte werkelijkheid, waarbij het individu slechts een miniscuul onderdeel is van die realiteit. Echter is de mens wel zijn eigen beperking en moeten we in onszelf die beperkingen zoeken. Een oerconcept is volgens mij niet vastgelegd in ons onderbewustzijn, maar het is de enige realiteit, waarvan wij individuele interpretaties beleven.

quote:

Op zaterdag 22 april 2006 18:08 schreef alien8ed het volgende:
Of je je door linguïstisch inferieuren laat wegjagen van fora is jou keuze, maar
kijk iig FF dit filmpje (in het engels)
Makes you rock your world...
(Die van jou misschien niet, gezien je huidige gedachtengoed )
Ik raad iedereen aan dit filmpje even te bekijken en dan nog te reageren.
FF de laatste vijf minuten negeren, ten bate van de discussie over onze perceptie.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2006 15:34 schreef Nickthedick het volgende:
Ik zou dan op dit gebied ook niet verder durven gaan dan te stellen dat: Perceptie en interpretatie in elk individueel gigantisch kunnen verschillen, maar dat definities - welke ook weer door perceptie en interpretatie inwendig gevormd worden - ervoor zorgen dat er een universeel begrip ontstaat over wat we bedoelen, wat losstaat van de perceptie en interpretatie van anderen.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2006 10:00 schreef 0d1n het volgende:
Ik moet zeggen als ik geen filosofische stof had gelezen voor het zien van dat filmpje ik erg verlicht door mijn kamer zou wandelen en me afvragen wat ik gemist zou hebben. Gelukkig ken ik de term "transcendentaal idealisme" en mijn eigen "dubbele destructie van het transcendente ondertussen".

Wij kunnen het hier trouwens WEL uitdiepen

quote:

Bohm and Pribram’s commitment to stand up for what they believe in, regardless of the consequences, is also evident in the holographic model. As we shall see, placing their not inconsiderable reputations behind such a controversial idea is not the easiest path either could have taken. Both their courage and the vision they have demonstrated in the past again add weight to the holographic idea.

The Paranormal as Evidence
One final piece of evidence in favor of the holographic model is the paranormal itself. This is no small point, for in the last several decades a remarkable body of evidence has accrued suggesting that our current understanding of reality, the solid and comforting sticks-andstones picture of the world we all learned about in high-school science class, is wrong. Because these findings cannot be explained by any of our standard scientific models, science has in the main ignored them. However, the volume of evidence has reached the point where this is no longer a tenable situation.

To give just one example, in 1987, physicist Robert G. Jahn and clinical psychologist Brenda J. Dunne, both at Princeton University, announced that after a decade of rigorous experimentation by their Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, they had accumulated unequivocal evidence that the mind can psychically interact with physical reality. More specifically, Jahn and Dunne found that through mental concentration alone, human beings are able to affect the way certain kinds of machines operate. This is an astounding finding and one that cannot be accounted for in terms of our standard picture of reality.

It can be explained by the holographic view, however. Conversely, because paranormal events cannot be accounted for by our current scientific understandings, they cry out for a new way of looking at the universe, a new scientific paradigm. In addition to showing how the holographic model can account for the paranormal, the book will also examine how mounting evidence in favor of the paranormal in turn actually seems to necessitate the existence of such a model.

Paranormal Remains Controversial
The fact that the paranormal cannot be explained by our current scientific worldview is only one of the reasons it remains so controversial. Another is that psychic functioning is often very difficult to pin down in the lab, and this has caused many scientists to conclude it therefore does not exist. This apparent elusiveness will also be discussed in the book.

An even more important reason is that contrary to what many of us have come to believe, science is not prejudice-free. I first learned this a number of years ago when I asked a well-known physicist what he thought about a particular parapsychological experiment. The physicist (who had a reputation for being skeptical of the paranormal) looked at me and with great authority said the results revealed "no evidence of any psychic functioning whatsoever." I had not yet seen the results, but because I respected the physicist’s intelligence and reputation, I accepted his judgment without question.

Later when I examined the results for myself, I was stunned to discover the experiment had produced very striking evidence of psychic ability. I realized then that even well-known scientists can possess biases and blind spots.

Unfortunately this is a situation that occurs often in the investigation of the paranormal. In a recent article in American Psychologist, Yale psychologist Irvin L. Child examined how a well-known series of ESP dream experiments conducted at the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, had been treated by the scientific establishment. Despite the dramatic evidence supportive of ESP uncovered by the experimenters, Child found their work had been almost completely ignored by the scientific community. Even more distressing, in the handful of scientific publications that had bothered to comment on the experiments, he found the research had been so "severely distorted" its importance was completely obscured.

How is this possible? One reason is science is not always as objective as we would like to believe. We view scientists with a bit of awe, and when they tell us something we are convinced it must be true We forget they are only human and subject to the same religious, philosophical, and cultural prejudices as the rest of us. This is unfortunate for as this book will show, there is a great deal of evidence that the umverse encompasses considerably more than our current worldview allows.

People are Addicted to Their Beliefs
But why is science so resistant to the paranormal in particular? This is a more difficult question. In commenting on the resistance he experienced to his own unorthodox views on health, Yale surgeon Dr. Bernie S. Siegel, author of the best-selling book Love, Medicine, and Miracles, asserts that it is because people are addicted to their beliefs. Siegel says this is why when you try to change someone’s belief they act like an addict.

There seems to be a good deal of truth to Siegel’s observation, which perhaps is why so many of civilization’s greatest insights and advances have at first been greeted with such passionate denial. We are addicted to our beliefs and we do act like addicts when someone tries to wrest from us the powerful opium of our dogmas. And since Western science has devoted several centuries to not believing in the paranormal, it is not going to surrender its addiction lightly.

I am lucky. I have always known there was more to the world than is generally accepted. I grew up in a psychic family, and from an early age I experienced firsthand many of the phenomena that will be talked about in this book. Occasionally, and when it is relevant to the topic being discussed, I will relate a few of my own experiences. Although they can only be viewed as anecedotal evidence, for me they have provided the most compelling proof of all that we live in a universe we are only just beginning to fathom, and I include them because of the insight they offer.

Lastly, because the holographic concept is still very much an idea in the making and is a mosaic of many different points of view and pieces of evidence, some have argued that it should not be called a model or theory until these disparate points of view are integrated into a more unified whole. As a result, some researchers refer to the ideas as the holographic paradigm. Others prefer holographic analogy, holographic metaphor, and so on. In this book and for the sake of diversity I have employed all of these expressions, including holographic model and holographic theory, but do not mean to imply that the holographic idea has achieved the status of a model or theory in the strictest sense of these terms.

In this same vein it is important to note that although Bohm and Pribram are the originators of the holographic idea, they do not embrace all of the views and conclusions put forward in this book. Rather, this is a book that looks not only at Bohm and Pribram’s theories, but at the ideas and conclusions of numerous researchers who have been influenced by the holographic model and who have interpreted it in their own sometimes controversial ways.

Expand Your Viewpoint of the World
Throughout this book I also discuss various ideas from quantum physics, the branch of physics that studies subatomic particles (electrons, protons, and so on). Because I have written on this subject before, I am aware that some people are intimidated by the term quantum physics and are afraid they will not be able to understand its concepts.

My experience has taught me that even those who do not know any mathematics are able to understand the kinds of ideas from physics that are touched upon in this book. You do not even need a background in science.

All you need is an open mind if you happen to glance at a page and see a scientific term you do not know. I have kept such terms down to a minimum, and on those occasions when it was necessary to use one, I always explain it before continuing on with the text.

So don’t be afraid. Once you have overcome your "fear of the water," I think you’ll find swimming among quantum physics’ strange and fascinating ideas much easier than you thought. I think you’ll also find that pondering a few of these ideas might even change the way you look at the world. In fact, it is my hope that the ideas contained in the following chapters will change the way you look at the world. It is with this humble desire that I offer this book.