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: George S. Montgomery who wrote (24218)	8/11/1998 7:42:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Hiya George. Before I do the numbers (convenient, no?) let me muse about Awe. The very few times I was well and truly awestruck, my emotional/cognitive response came in layers. Top: "This is So Cool." Next: "Man, I wish I were sharing this with somebody." (Corollary: "somebody who looks like Tina in ninth grade.") Next, a formless surmise: "Y'know, I'll betcha somebody else is seeing this too." And finally: "And I'll betcha Somebody set this whole cool thing up. I can feelit." I think we have our monkey-natures to contend with. It's in the monkey-nature to see God in a rock. Or a really sinus-clearing thunderstorm. Now, the numbers. 1) Presence can be more subtle than physical or concrete. If it were measurable, think of all the trouble we would save ourselves. 2) "in touch" is deliberately vague. I'd say that "aware of its existence" still qualifies as "in touch". Two-way awareness is maybe on the stringent side. 3) It cares - well, if it didn't care, it wouldn't matter one way or the other. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest it might not care. But then, like Descartes on the airplane - it ceases to matter. Imho of course! 4) Extension of 3). "We are on our own" in the broadest, coldest sense imaginable. The monkey-nature wants so much to have daddy peering over our shoulder minding the leopards that we're not above making it up. >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.< Whoa, methinks there's a conclusion sneaking in here I did not intend! I was suggesting (from a platform of near-virginal ignorance, mind you) that the Volume Knob plays a music very compelling but so personal - if you tried to hum a few bars for anybody else, you'd get a blank stare. I do not seek to discredit this experience! No. I merely point out that it defies being put in a box. As a consequence, it's not easily shared. Kesey tried and failed. Bummmmer. Finally: > I am not agnostic, because there is 'something.'< Well, I'm agnostic, and I think there may be Something as well. But I balk when someone tries to put Something into his handy parchment leash. Later