Quantum Psychology Book Club

Originally posted by shipovfools
You hit the nail on the head. I think RAW included the "measurable but false" statements just to throw us off. False statements still have meaning, albeit one which contradicts the facts.

I agree that's what he seemed to mean. But then why call them meaningful/meaningless? Why not just stick with testable/untestable? Or measurable/immeasurable, or verifiable/unverifiable? It seems like what he's getting at is not an unusual concept at all -- every science class I've ever been in from 6th grade on has included something about "what is a valid (i.e. testable) hypothesis. Why the insistence on equating "meaningful" with "reflects deep reality?"

I don't really think there are any major differences in how people are interpreting these terms, just differences in where they put the cut-off. In the chapter RAW actually gives 4 categories, not just 2: true, false, currently untestable, and meaningless. I lumped currently untestable in with meaningful, and was pretty liberal in applying my imagination to ways that a statement could in the future become testable.

So, for example, I know nothing about space-time physics, as understood now or when the book was written, but I assumed that someone who knew the material might be able to imagine a means which could in the future become possible to tell the difference between space-time curving and electromagnetic radiation curving. Or tell that there is no difference, whichever.

Just to provide the more debate you requested, I chose to say the garbage statement was "meaningless" not only because of the fact that "garbage" is totally subjective, (someone could have had anything they didnt want in the bags, bodies for instance) but also because "this morning" is vague and does not give a real measurable time frame.

(Partly as a response to all the stuff brought up in the chapter about the difficulty of time statements being meaningful unless the specifics are stated as to what context that time is being measured in)

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I waffled over the garbage statement for a while and decided two things:

1) he can't actually want us not to know what the referent of a word is. Morning, for instance, could be defined as "the time when the big glowy thing in the sky appears to be more west than east." "Anything the speaker doesn't want" seems like at least an arguably accurate definition of garbage.

2) I can't rule out that some time in the future it will become possible to travel back to this morning and not only watch myself leave the building with a bag in hand to drop it on the curb, but go sort through the bag to make sure that what is in it hasn't mysteriously transformed into something I might want.

EDIT to change "is" to "appears to be"

[edit on 9/6/08 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by americandingbat


1) he can't actually want us not to know what the referent of a word is. Morning, for instance, could be defined as "the time when the big glowy thing in the sky appears to be more west than east."

Lol. And if it WERE defined that way, it would certainly be confusing to me.

Actually, that statement IS meaningful to me personally, because I believe I know what you meant.

However, it does sort of highlight the problem with "time" references. There always exists the possibility that you mean precisely what you said, in which case, no real information would be exchanged between us if you said, "I took out the garbage this morning." My assumption about what you meant to convey would be incorrect.

Aside from the time issue, I really do not know what to make of the garbage thing. I would (in practice) absolutely assume you meant "things I didnt want," but I would also assume by the God statements that someone meant a vague sort of something as well. "A supernatural being." I dont know. I wish the author would give what they considered the "correct" answers to be. That would help me sharpen the understanding of what they meant by meaningless/meaningful.

As the debate marches on, I can see why he had the warning about when conflict arises. Not that anyone is bickering yet, but I could imagine if this was in a classroom setting, that there would easily be some bickering due to the vagueness of the topic.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by americandingbat


1) he can't actually want us not to know what the referent of a word is. Morning, for instance, could be defined as "the time when the big glowy thing in the sky appears to be more west than east."

Lol. And if it WERE defined that way, it would certainly be confusing to me.

LOL! Oops, my mistake

Did I kill the book club? I haven't gone on to the next chapter yet, but I'm still up for it if anyone else is?

I came to the end of this thread to check on you guys.. I haven't been reading any of these books, but I am confused by this page. Meaningless/meaningful mornings garbage and god. hmmm.
I don't want to be confused any more than I already am... but maybe I will catch you on the next book.

reply to post by seagrass


We're moving pretty slow and you wouldn't be far behind if you jumped in now. Speaking of which, are we ready to move on? The next exercises are going to be difficult to translate into online participation though.

OOPS! Wrong thread. Lol I hope I didn't kill this thread.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Frankidealist35]

A rather late answer to the door question:

Kafka's story reminds me of an old joke: "If a plane crashed half way between 2 cemeteries, where would the survivors be buried?"

The door to the law, the door to the meditation room ...

We accept the notion of a door to the law for no better reason than that it figures in a story. But what is the law? Where is the law? Is it something that ever could be shut up into a room; hidden behind the door?

Through fear of the doorman and the other guards said to be inside, Kman, (Kafka's man,) made a law for himself, that he would obey the doorman.
This law came from within. Kman's futile attempts at persuasion and bribery were the result of the law of obedience he had made. He remained faithful to his inner law all his life, so he bore responsibility for the outcome. Yes, it's harsh, but the point of this philosophy is not to judge others. It's to understand which thoughts and actions are the most constructive for oneself to live by.

Living in a society which has laws, we tend to think law is a collection of statutes we must obey. Or at least until laws are written against software piracy. The statutes are usually worth following as they grease the cogs of society, enabling a large group of people to live together peacefully. However there is no guarantee that any law is good. We must be our own law, knowing society's laws, but aware that we bear ultimate responsibility for all our own actions and their consequences. Outside law can be a useful guide, but for each individual it is their inside law that matters.

Even if we are told: "do this or the law enforcers will kill you", we still have the choice, to obey or to die. It is only once one is prepared to choose either way that one is free.

Kman was never shut out from the law. He was the law. The door was his because it was of his own making.

Simon, suddenly shut out of the meditation room, realised there was no meditation place,no meditation exercise. The effort to do meditation was stopped, the attachment to place and teacher broken, and he was free to be his deepest self. Suddenly it was clear, he was his own meditation.


Btw, this analysis of what I at first thought was a nasty and pointless tale was inspired by Cadbury.






[edit on 20/10/08 by Kailassa]

reply to post by Kailassa


Exceptional post. I will make every effort to read all your posts in future. Your perception is one I think I will enjoy. Besides, we seemingly find our inspiration in some of the same places.

Best wishes to you.
KT

I'd like to recoment Dr Manjir Samanta-Laughtons book called punk Science

Briging consciousness into science.

edit to say,I've not read it yet,I only ordered it the other day But from her interview on the website www.punkscience.com... it looks an interesting read at least.

[edit on 6/11/2008 by Acidtastic]