[Terrapreta] maybe controversial

David Yarrow dyarrow at nycap.rr.com
Sat Apr 12 19:06:08 CDT 2008

Previous message: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
Next message: [Terrapreta] Why is carbon black?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

light is neither particle nor wave. it just appears that way to our physical senses. when encountering the mysterious, few things are what they seem. in fact, most things are no-thing at all.

it is more accurate and universal to say light is vibration. an oscillation between two polar states of energy. whether light appears as particle or wave is mostly a matter of phase coherence.

it is most precise to say that light is food for awareness, and awareness is the ghost hiding behind condensed physical matter -- the black hole at the heart of sentience.

light has certain properties that can be manipulated to create pattern, rhythm and symmetry. this allows light to carry information, which are the nutrients for consciousness. pattern encoded into light is intelligence, which exists in a dimension well beyond the physical.

its like cell chemistry. a cell isn't just hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sulfur, iron, copper.... those elements are organized in structures like DNA that assume specific shapes that encoded specific intelligence.

sad to say, virtually everyone except very young children are programmed by belief, and live inside very confining prisons built from their limitation by belief and emotion. sadly, each of us is far more intelligent than we could ever begin to believe -- but then we confront the distinction between brain and mind -- between head and heart.

so, while we argue about what is light, and whether the universe is limited by our beliefs, let's not forget about that other great force that holds light together, forms bodies and initiates the quest for "the other" -- love. or do you believe love is just 4-letter word? or a chemical trace left by your neurons?

and while we are debating what is light, does anybody know why carbon is black? except as diamonds.

for a green & peaceful planet,
David Yarrow
44 Gilligan Rd, E Greenbush, NY 12061
www.championtrees.org
www.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.org
www.farmandfood.org
www.SeaAgri.com
----- Original Message -----
From: lou gold
To: Sean K. Barry
Cc: Terra Preta
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial

Sean,

That's exactly what I said -- "Light is BOTH a particle AND a wave." (At the end of my first paragraph.) But you didn't respond the the issue that I raised -- "we now need BOTH belief AND science."

lou

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

Lou,

Light is BOTH a particle AND a wave. Believe it or not. Believers make the miracles of modern electronics and optics happen.

But if you believed it is a particle, you designed an experiment and found it to be a wave.

If you did this, then the good scientists in you ought to stop believing it is a particle anymore.

Regards,

SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: lou gold
To: Sean K. Barry
Cc: Jim Joyner ; Terra Preta
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial

Hi Sean,

I guess in old-school science we might separate science and belief -- sort of make it a matter of EITHER science OR belief. But this won't work.

They tried that with light thinking it was EITHER a particle OR a wave. If you believed it is a wave, you designed an appropriate experiment, tested your hypothesis, and discovered that it's a wave. But if you believed it is a particle, you designed an experiment and found it to be a wave. It drove them nuts until they realized that the logical paradigm of EITHER/OR was too limited to answer the question. So they transcended the contradiction with an emergent logic of BOTH/AND. Light is BOTH a particle AND a wave.

I think that we have arrived at an analogous position with regard to the new earth challenges that exponential population growth has produced. It didn't matter too much what people believed when there were few of us. But know it matters a great deal -- precisely, because belief triggers behavior. The fight of science vs belief belongs with Galileo. That was the high-profile EITHER/OR situation. But times have changed and now we need to think in terms of BOTH belief AND science. IMHO, this this the step we are now trying to take. And, just as with the problem of light, we need to BOTH believe AND employ the scientific method.

I don't expend much energy (near zero) on the AGW debate because I believe there are additional serious questions such as where are 9 billion people going to get enough drinking water, where will the plants that feed them get enough water, and etc? We, the collective WE on this planet have stepped into a whole new experiment. Now we must BOTH believe that our behavior matters AND that we can implement the right actions. This is what I think Gore was talking about.

And so, once again someone has given me a chance to spout off. Thank you Sean and thank you to those willing to endure such a flow of words.

hugs and blessings to all,

lou

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

Hi Lou,

I think it might be worthwhile to separate science from beliefs. No scientists' that I know conduct themselves upon belief nearly as much as they use the Scientific Method. This method is born almost as a way to operate sans belief. The wisdom of scientists is not at issue either. The IPCC scientists do not make policy (maybe some policy recommendations in there area of research).

Some will say the "Scientific Method" is flawed. They are right. In the realm of observable real world phenomenon, that are all measurable without the aid of the human belief system, I think that the "Scientific Method" serves mankind better than our beliefs. I will suspend my belief and/or disbelief to use my 5 sense faculties, my mind, and my hands, to try and effect a change in what I observe happening in the world. I think this makes me appear to be a "strong believer" in the validity of the "Scientific Method", though.

Hehe ... see, so can I use my belief as a tool, too? To what end? To try and convince anyone who disbelieves about the science that I think I understand? Ahhhhh ... I can't do it ... no one cares what I believe! I'd rather not discuss this in terms of beliefs. I've got not problem with anyone's beliefs (unless of course they are into proselytizing and/or ramming it into my head).

I reject belief as a tool for climate scientists.

Regards,

SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: lou gold
To: Jim Joyner
Cc: Terra Preta
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial

Jim,

Well, reading your response does make me think that you are a man of strong beliefs.

No, I am not diminishing anything when I say that egos and beliefs are tools. What is at issue is not whether we have them but rather how we use them. Right now we are hammering the earth. I think you would agree with that statement and not call it a "badly fallacious analogy," or would you? You see, it all depends on how something is (or is not) used. So I will go back my analogy: a good carpenter knows when not to use his hammer and a good scientist is careful about what his discovery is used for. In the final analysis his choice will require wisdom more than knowledge. And what he considers as wise will be very influenced by his beliefs. There no getting around it. So I truly believe that it is better to openly share one's beliefs and reveal their implications in action so that we might better understand whether to use them or not.

And there is nothing at all wrong with "wish" as you have expressed it (close to a "desire"), Ghandi famously said, "We must be the change that we desire." Yes, this is indeed "be-lief." St Francis said the same in another way, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." And little me wishes a future full of big trees and happy children, so I must be here saying these things. You are correct, my "be-wish" is not knowledge but it guides my search and hopefully leads me to it. Do you really wish to make this beacon dim? What would you use instead?

If I say, "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" it might (and has historically) lead to wars and slaughter. But if I say that and also say, "We are all Children of God" the outcome is quite different. And the difference that makes the difference in this case is ... belief! If properly used and understood, what a glorious thing it is!

But there's a limit (as you suggest). It's not good to get too attached to your beliefs because then you will take them "personally" and THAT is where the mischief begins. Buddha saw this clearly and therefore counseled for "no attachment" rather than "no belief." And as this detachment develops it becomes, yes, just like a hammer that one can pick up or put down as is appropriate to the situation. It's called "right action." And that is precisely what I BELIEVE we are all looking for.

A bow of gratitude to you (and this forum) for allowing me to "spout off" a bit. Apologies if there was (is) any offense in my words.

hugs and blessings,

lou

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net> wrote:

Lou,

I would agree that beliefs abound; I would not agree that they are necessary for human life, certainly not survival. They rather seem an anathema to life to me. To say, "egos and beliefs, like other tools such as hammers, are only tools" is to use a badly fallacious analogy.

Please don't confuse knowledge with beliefs. Knowledge is necessary for humans to survive, and difficult enough, But belief (whether correct or incorrect) is bound to something purely personal, and I mean that in the worst sense. ("Person" or "personal" comes from persona, a mask, a false front, the ego -- in a sense something that doesn't really exist except in thought. At best an illusion, at worst a delusion. The root word in belief is "lief" or wish. To say I believe is to say I be-wish . . . not a statement of knowledge)

If I say, "the sun is coming up at 6:30AM", that is simply a statement of content that may be right or wrong : knowledge. It is not who I think I am. One can easily disagree with knowledge as right or wrong . . . if that is all it is, then no one will care.

If, however, I say, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the content of the statement isn't really the issue (right or wrong, rational or irrational). What is being stated is who I think I am. If that statement is threatened (disagreed upon), it is the same a as death threat to the speaker -- and he/she will fight as if death itself were at the door. Given legitimate use of weapons (gov't), he/she will dominate other life by force. Never fails. No exceptions. Just look around.

To put beliefs on a level with "tools such as hammers" is to be Neville Chamberlain holding up a piece of paper signed by Hitler and saying, "you see, everything will be alright, they simply see things differently that we do".

Jim

lou gold wrote:
yes, yes belief is only belief. like ego it is a necessary tool for survival. just try to function without any beliefs (such as crossing a street is potentially dangerous).

but egos and beliefs, like other tools such as hammers, are only tools. it is important to know when not to use them.

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net> wrote:

Probably, the most dangerous commodity on the face of the planet is human belief systems. Not their content necessarily (which may or may not be correct), but just act of the believing, ultimately an expression of ego.

The worst of such belief systems are argued with the notion that logic makes them valid. They conveniently forget that all knowledge is based on assumptions or axioms, and that the quality of all thought (and probably the quality of human life) rests on the quality of assumptions made. They start with a belief, then they use the rational facility to justify it. Religions, governments and political ideologies come to mind. Sometimes, science. Some belief systems seem more innocuous than others. But, it may be they just don't have the guns yet to enforce the belief.

These belief systems have been and are the source of practically all human suffering on the planet, not to mention the innocent bystander species.

Jim

--
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets

http://youtube.com/my_videos _______________________________________________

Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org

--
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080412/ff0b3c5b/attachment-0001.html

Previous message: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
Next message: [Terrapreta] Why is carbon black?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Terrapreta mailing list