[Terrapreta] maybe controversial

[lou gold]

thanks david.

ya gave me a good chuckle. i seem to have opened quite a door here. i'm
always reminded of rumi's poetry:

"beyond all notions of right and wrong ways there is a field. i would like
to meet you there."

it must be a good place. lots of love there i suspect.

hugs to ya,

lou

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:06 PM, David Yarrow <dyarrow at nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>  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 <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> *Cc:* Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> *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 <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> >   *To:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> > *Cc:* Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net> ; Terra Preta<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> > *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 <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> > > *To:* Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net>
> > > *Cc:* Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> > >  *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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://lougold.blogspot.com
> > http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> > http://youtube.com/my_videos
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080413/aec01f54/attachment-0001.html