Ghost Hunters are on tonight!

Alright, see…I dont know whether you fangirling so hard about ghost hunters or being sarcastic…

Edit : this one’s at you, @SmilingOgre

1 Like

I’m the one who knocks - another Heisenberg

1 Like

In a pivotal Breaking Unhealthy scene the place Walt’s spouse Skylar tries to him to persuade to show himself in, his ego is wounded by her suggestion he is at risk and will shot simply answering his door. He provides her an offended rant about how massive his enterprise has grow to be, and that is he is not the one at risk. “I’m the one who knocks! ” is the road he provides in response to the thought he could possibly be killed opening his door.

1 Like

Concepts that we may call “hunting” sentient consciousnesses - in some way(s) oriented towards places and/or creatures, and of which we have not the slightest definitive idea as to their nature, scope, abilities and sentiments - is a kind of humorous re-iteration of the reductionists’ empty assurances that Nature can be known, understood and controlled by conscious will and/or mystical associations and/or machinery alone

(IMO), those shows are rank commercial exploitation of and by folks largely entirely unprepared for the kind of events that they may hope to conjure, like some freak show - a way of being related to that would rightly irritate/infuriate fleshy sentient beings. If and when these folks may “get what they only think that they want”, they may live to humbly regret their misplaced senses of concreteness and control leading them into danger.

I do not know the man so bold
He dare in lonely Place
That awful stranger Consciousness
Deliberately face.
-Emily Dickinson

1 Like

Never can speak for the unspeakable but I see where your thinking is going.

The known unknown and unknowable

Words are abstract they are not the real thing. The word tree is not a tree it’s a seed in your mind. The word sadness is not really sadness, it’s not even close to the real thing. If your seeds are corrupt, your thinking, projections, and predictions into the future are most likely corrupt also, at best it’s still unclear and in the dark. Nothing is guaranteed

Might be better to go into the forest and talk to the trees directly or to lay back and feel your sadness. Then you’re directly in communication with nature. Then you see, you are a part of nature and what you’re observing is nature as yourself. So you the observer is also the observed

Nature, the universe might after all just be an intense super powerful feeling that manifested and is manifesting everything. Its unnameable, since its part of the unknowable. Just like the answer sits in silence while everyone surrounds it waiting for it to speak and it sits there (laughing at us?, crying for us? or in a void and does’t even know we are watching.)

Thinking just get in the way most of the time, projecting your thinking trying to figure things out or predict outcomes may also changes and corrupt the results. Trapped in a perfect circle of life long confusion. With no real intellectual growth.

Forgetting about all the answers and predictions and just pondering the wonder of our existence and the strangeness of everything makes it a little more cozy.

3 Likes

I disagree. The Human consciousness is one and as a human, there is the potential to tap into that consciousness.

I like that.

That makes sense. I wonder what he would think about our messing around with Nature (the weather)?

They have no idea, but it’s still fun…

You don’t believe in magic?

interisting concept.

1 Like

Hmmm. Sort of (paraphrased), “consciousnesses are one singular process of which the plural is illusory” ? If that was the case, then why are all arguments over (subjective) perceptual aesthetics patently absurd ?

Sometimes the magic works - sometimes it doesn’t.
-Little Big Man

:thinking:

2 Likes

:thinking:

1 Like

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. … consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown

I believe what he is saying is you can’t read or be in someone else’s mind, or experience there consciousness directly. Only singularly or subjectively and through projecting your own thought onto it or in a fantasy. i.e. being in a delusion or believing for the sake of believeing. e.g. religously or mystically. As opposed to knowing via facts.

2 Likes

I suppose he could be. It’s hard to know without context and I have never read his work so I will have to take your word for it.

I can see that.

2 Likes

The term “fact” implies the possibility of a certainty of mutual agreement between individual differentiable consciousnesses upon an ideal “objective” reality (or at least, aspects thereof). But such certainty is an illusory goal to claim to know and prove to be reached. The opposite “pole” would be an ultimate “subjectivity” - where one’s head is not believed to collide with (rhetorical) brick-walls, as a result of simply ignoring the senses. Neither of these opposite polar conceptual ideals seem viable within existence (the great humbler).

The tensions between that which we know in ineffable ways and that which others may equally mysteriously know within themselves and express in conversational communications is well addressed by William Blake:

The Eye altering alters all.

One thought fills immensity.

Everything possible to be believed is an image of truth.

He’s a Blockhead who wants a proof of what he can’t Perceive,
and he’s a Fool who tries to make such a Blockhead believe.

.

Physicist Richard Feynman gave an interesting lecture about the differences between (scientific, reductive, empirical) “knowing”, and a more comprehensive “understanding” of Nature:

3 Likes

Here is the full text of my selected excerpts from Erwin Schroedinger’s text:

By [objectification] I mean the thing that is also frequently called ‘the hypothesis of the real world’ around us. I maintain that it amounts to a certain simplification which we adopt in order to master the infinitely intricate problem of nature. Without being aware of it and without being rigorously systematic about it, we exclude the Subject of Cognizance from the domain of nature that we endeavor to understand. We step with our own person back into the part of an onlooker who does not belong to the world, which by this very procedure becomes an objective world. This device is veiled by the following two circumstances. First, my own body (to which my mental activity is so very directly and intimately linked) forms part of the object (the real world around me) that I construct out of my sensations, perceptions and memories. Secondly, the bodies of other people form part of this world … [Page 127]

The material world has only been constructed at the price of taking the self, that is, the mind, out of it, removing it; mind is not part of it; obviously, therefore, it can neither act on it nor be acted on by any of its parts. [Page 128]

For do not let us forget: to say … that the becoming of the world is reflected in a conscious mind is but a cliche, a phrase, a metaphor that has become familiar to us. The world is given but once. Nothing is reflected. The original and the mirror-image are identical. The world extended in space and time is but our representation (Vorstellung). Experience does not give us the slightest clue of its being anything besides that - as Berkeley was well aware. [Page 146]

No single man can make a distinction between the realm of his perceptions and the realm of things that cause it since, however detailed the knowledge he may have acquired about the whole story, this story is occurring only once not twice. The duplication is an allegory, suggested mainly by communication with other human beings and even with animals … how on earth shall we decide that a common feature of all our experience is due to the constitution of our mind rather than a quality shared by all those objectively existing things? [Page 156]

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. … Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown … in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt. Everest turned out to the same peak seen from different valleys. [Epilogue]

Erwin Schroedinger, “What Is Life? and Mind and Matter”, Cambridge University Press, 1944

3 Likes

Deja vu must be just a glitch in my mind but Im pliable to go with it lol :wink:

2 Likes

Ah yes, the guy with the cat. Thanks

1 Like

(IMO), not a single moment in existence (can possibly, or in actuality does) ever repeat. Striving for such sensations of certainty distracts from the acceptance of an ineluctable uniqueness. “Leaving behind” does not imply that moments in place and time can be revisited. Instead, we “let go” when we look behind us with simultaneous wonder and reverence as well as some degree of terror as we find that once familiar shores are no more, and our being may struggle in striving to “dance upon the ashes of that which was”. Humbling.

The concepts of complex psychology are, in essence, not intellectual formulations, but names for certain areas of experience, and though they can be described they remain dead and irrepresentable to anyone who has not experienced them. … Unless one understands his or her limitations, one cannot possibly experience the limitless. (Carl Jung, “Four Archetypes”)


Mystery constitutes the processional inverse
of all conceptualization and explanation;
limitless horizon beyond measure;
treasures beyond possession;
awareness without certainty;
remembrances of eternity.

:thinking:

2 Likes

Both. I really do watch the crazy thing.

2 Likes

Last night they talked with Mary the Pook. She was a nice pook. They now have a new friend.

3 Likes

A few minutes ago I heard my mom coming in with the groceries so I went upstairs to help…

NOBODY WAS HOME!!!

Now, this is not the first time that has happened. I went back and got my phone and started to record in hopes of getting a glimpse. Sometimes a camera is able to spot them.

I am very curious about this subject and strive to understand. For instance, is a Shadow person a ghost or Vice a Versa? How are they able to manipulate solid objects. Does it take “power” (energy?) to move an object in this dimension? Do they reside in this dimension?

Questions, always another question.

2 Likes

When I had children at home all kinds of weird things would happen. I would ask them if they did these weird things. They would all say no. Now that they have moved out weird things no longer happen. I guess the pooks moved out with them.

4 Likes

I’ll keep that in mind. I ask the same questions and get the same answers as you. LOL

4 Likes