Today marks the 5th Anniversary of the origin of betty boop... in FreeRepublic.com!
boop boop-ey doop!
So balrogg666, let's try to find a real basis for same. Here's my little essay in that regard:
Probably people wonder what I mean about "studying the operations of one's own consciousness." It's about isolating two things: construct -- the mental operations involved -- and concept -- the content of the thought process.
Which probably sounds perfectly opaque. I can give a description of what I'm talking about by means of an anecdote; and I can tell you what that description means, to me. What I can't do is tell you what it means to you. You judge that for yourself.
Anyhoot, the anecdote. I had a lovely conversation with my husband, B., this afternoon, about what to do about his trumpet. A beautiful, classic, silver Besson B-flat trumpet that, for some 20+ years, has been getting virtually daily playing time; thus she's getting a tad "long in the tooth" by now. She's literally wearing out, naturally eroded from the inside (apparently aerosolized saliva projected at high velocities is devastating to brass over time), and thus must be replaced soon. (I'd be holding a wake for this estimable instrument, were it not for the fact that Besson, as beautiful as she is in all respects, is of French manufacture....)
So, do we buy new? Or do we restore any of several other classic horns that B owns? (All of them built in America.) And while we're at it, should we get B.'s Getzen fluegelhorn -- a "working instrument" -- refurbished while we're at it?
Which led to a consideration of the Getzen's marvelous playing qualities. She's an older horn, too; but holding up well. People just love the sound that B. gets out of that horn. (I know that, 'cause B.'s professional peers and audience members alike have been telling us that for years. Plus I've got my own ears.)
B. said he thought the leadpipe had to be rebuilt. Then he mused about whether the horn's sound properties were attributable more to the leadpipe or to the mouthpiece. (B. is cutting-edge on mouthpiece technology.) Then I said:
"Or to both together."
He agreed that was definitely a possibility. Then I said:
"Or to you." And he said this:
"I need both in order to express my Voice in the first place." [Sorry. I just had to capitalize that "V"....]
In the course of this brief exchange of four lines, B.'s "I" had been invoked some three times: The first as a locus of judgment about the technical capability of a musical instrument; the second as will (recognizing and effecting the means to satisfy the need identified in that judgment); the third as Voice -- the reason why the other two foregoing problems have significance in the first place. IMHO FWIW.
So I ran the "instant replay" of the immediately foregoing; and B. saw what I meant.
[End of anecdote.]
Which gets us back to our original indication of the problem of construct and content, and how they relate with each other "in nature." "Leadpipe" and "mouthpiece" -- and the entire physical system "horn" of which they are parts -- constitute the construct in the above anecdote. The content is the Voice being expressed; and more than that. For the mediator between these two seems to be the free choice -- will -- made to effect the best means to bring together the physical properties needed to express a "something," the Voice, which is in its essence nonphysical. That choice is made by a non-physical thinker and willer.
If consciousness has any tangible, or "granular" quality -- as we might expect from a condition of pure "physicality"; and if it is, ultimately, attributable "merely" to particle behavior -- well, all I can say is: So far, I have not seen any evidence, let alone "proof," that demonstrates, let alone settles, the problem.
If something is physical, it ought to be "sensible" -- i.e., detectable by means of sense perception (by technological extension as necessary). But it seems that most of cutting-edge physical theory right now is not in the least bit interested in the problem of consciousness -- the problem of the observer, and his/her/its impact on "the measurement problem" of quantum theory.
It seems to me there are real things that are not "sensible" at all, in the conventional sense. They have to be seen and understood from a perspective that is not limited by the constraints of pure physicality, if they are to be seen and understood at all.
When you rely on analogy, the interpretation is totally subjective.
It seems to me there are real things that are not "sensible" at all, in the conventional sense.
Indeed, although we may disagree about which are which.
They have to be seen and understood from a perspective that is not limited by the constraints of pure physicality, if they are to be seen and understood at all.
If such a perspective exists and produces insight, I'm all for it. But then, that is the question isn't it?
The problem I have with your argument is the unspoken and unproven assumption that physicality is "mere".
It seems to me there are real things that are not "sensible" at all, in the conventional sense. They have to be seen and understood from a perspective that is not limited by the constraints of pure physicality, if they are to be seen and understood at all.
Absolutely!
In the flesh, I thought I had experienced love, joy, peace, gentleness and harmony. But when I first was in the spirit, I discovered that I never truly experienced or understood any of it.
And there is so much more that cannot be expressed in words, much less understood by the constraints of pure physicality.
Please 'splain. I don't find a definition of word "voice" that pairs up with a definition or application of the word "reason," here.
Of course I can tend to misplace things.
Today marks the 5th Anniversary of the origin of betty boop... in FreeRepublic.com!