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: Rick Julian who wrote (27444)	12/30/1998 11:37:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The rational is always at conflict with the irrational- I suppose one can embrace the conflict as a whole, but there is no other way to reconcile the two sides of man's nature. I do not understand what river flows between the rational and irrational forces in our nature. Would you care to elaborate? It seems to me one can "believe" or one can "doubt" - what is your middle ground?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (27444)	12/30/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Respond to of 108807

Rick, I agree with you on that. I believe that sciences like mathematics, physics and astronomy discover what God did when He created this universe. The laws that govern it are fixed and predictable. The spirit has power also but it's not something we can see and measure so many discount that. I believe that there are many things we don't know, too many to make bold statements about what we think we do know. (Except me). <ggg> Faith is a force that can't be seen but can do amazing things. People are able to see the future which means that this knowledge is attainable somehow. Bob

To: Rick Julian who wrote (27444)	12/30/1998 7:55:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

Rick, And don't we just love to choose sides? Love to dig our heels into the banks of duality? North and south, black and white, yes and no. I'm not so sure that's true. We all show up at these discussions with ideas and beliefs, which we have arrived at through various processes and to which we are to some degree committed. We sling them around, bounce them off other ideas, pick apart the methods by which they were arrived at, etc. We do this, obviously, with varying degrees of politeness, pungency, irritation, etc. It's all good fun, and remains good fun until somebody shows up and says "I don't just believe, I know. When that happens, somebody will always say, usually politely, that he doesn't really know, he believes, because the subject under discussion is not within the realm of the knowable. The distinction between knowledge and belief may be semantic, but a certain degree of semantic rigor is required for intelligent conversation. If you're going to say "I believe", you should be prepared to offer reasons why. If you say "I know", you should be able to offer proof. Steve

To: Rick Julian who wrote (27444)	12/31/1998 11:12:00 AM
From: Rick Julian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

A couple of thoughts as we amble (I love ambling. Moseying too.) into 1999: I saw the Amazing Randy (professional skeptic and "debunker") on TV the other night crowing about how no one had yet claimed his $1 million prize--the one he offered to anyone who could demonstrate paranormal powers in a scientifically controlled setting and in the presence of witnesses. Made me wonder: I wonder if Mr. Randy, as the subject of such an experiment, could get and maintain an erection in such a setting? You know, cameras rolling, bright lights glaring, people staring at him saying "C'mon make it grow...Rise Amazing Randy, Rise! . . .we're waaaaitiiiing. Most men don't even have to "try", given the right stimulus and setting (sometimes it just happens without any provocation), but I wonder if he had to "try" and "prove" himself, just how he'd do. Point is this: even non-paranormally gifted people fail to "prove" themselves all the time--especially in high pressure situations. For example, Greg Norman is a brilliant golfer, but in certain situations (U.S. majors) he has never been able to sink a winning putt. I know some very talented stage musicians who "freeze" in recording studios when tape begins to roll. I've known people who are side splittingly funny when among friends, but who have tried their schtick on stage and couldn't get a chuckle. There are many such examples of "failure" among all performers, in all walks of life. Does their inability to "prove" themselves all the time, in all settings, invalidate their gift? I don't think so. Many of our "gifts" require a specific matrix of conditions for their unveiling. While many of the folks Mr. Randy has debunked were true charlatans, I suspect that some were genuinely gifted, but unable to perform in his dictated environment. Anyway, I hope all of you posting and lurking Feelies have a wonderfully, physical, financial, emotional, and spiritually erect New Year. Peace, Rick