Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (24213)	8/11/1998 4:54:00 PM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Dear Alex: I knew I respected you. Now, I see specifically why. What an extraordinary open response you have made! The cards are on the table. The game is still in progress. How delightful! (If my machine could use Cut and Paste, this would be a more coherent reply than it probably will be.) Your 4 d'posits: 1) Presence? Appears to be almost a physical or concrete characteristic. How about No Presence? (disagree) 2) "In Touch" with It? Very vague. Is sensing its existence the same as being in touch? (disagree) 3) It cares? That 'awareness' and intellectual/spiritual involvement lie at the base of my previous post to you. It has to be conscious/aware? (disagree) 4) It involves itself with morality. Whose morality. What is morality? (disagree) Why does the Oversoul have to be 'created' by (human) life? (cannot comprehend) "We are on our own." Our own physical selves? Our own created deities? Our own what? As humans? As primates? As living organisms? As representatives of a vast mushy-moo of time/matter/energy? Drugs and our Inner Eyes. Why does the absence of a solution or formula have to discredit the experience of the Volume Knob having tuned in the wavelength in the first place. (One of the deepest regrets of my life is having had only about a dozen bouts with pot. I am so ripe, but so unfertilized!) Your two-valued arguing/inquiring style. That is why I love your note - and am returning your shotgun's volley at such length. Temporary, transitional agnostic. If the definition, comprehension, conceptualization, of the It, of which you speak, could be less precise, there possibly would be the ability to acknowledge: Something. Don't know what. But, there's something happening. I don't Believe in It. But, I gotta say, something's happening. The Conscious/Interactive part (of the Force) is necessary to make it of consequence. This is the nub of the whole matter. It is the subject of my previous post to you. We have a knowing deity - or we have no deity, or thing beyond ourselves! This is at the root of our absence of agreement. Agnosticism for cynics only. No. For Scholastics, needing definitions and specifics. I am not agnostic, because there is 'something.' I am not atheist for the same reason. Nor, for God's sake, do I follow any organized religion. I have held for years that questions about 'God' cannot be discussed without having an agreed-upon definition of what it is we are discussing before we start. And I feel that our recent posts have hit right at that target: What is the Nature of this Concept we are trying to come to grips with? BOTTOM LINE! Awe. I do not see why power and radiant benevolence have to be attached to Awe. (This is the same type of characteristic attribution you did in your note to Steve.) And, to paraphrase, or change, your final statement: I believe it well might be related to the radio waves of too fewneurons... I will not apologize for the length of this. It has been too much of a kick just putting it together. Thanks to your post. George