We are more aware of things at a deeper level than we are conscious of.
They say that great truths are great because they're true on many levels, that is they're deep metaphors that can be practically applied in many situations.
Potentials are based on intention/expectation.
When you see someone do something great, and seek to elevate yourself to that level one must intend and expect to be able to move in that direction, I cannot see evidence to the contrary.
We can never know something unless enough of us believe it exists or at least can imagine it and we go looking for it.
Or we discover it by accident, or sometimes it takes the ball hitting you in the head to realize its there. The proverbial nail in the head.
Belief and imagination are grounded in a system of logic that is shared by those who partake in an experience.
Which experience is the grounds for that logic. I used to think the Phenomenological reduction was the way to see things clearly, I'm not so sure any more. I'm starting to agree more and more with Diogenes. The practical method is best, the simple but challenging is the most interesting.
Planets in our solar system came into being out of necessity to comply with the theories.
We saw planets first, wondered what they were and saw they agreed with formulas derived from observation. Just like we learned to cry before we learned to ask for food.
Learning is both the most frustrating and incredible aspect of our species. When you're motivated, when you have emotional content involved in your education, when you feel the lessons, is when you learn the best.
When I was learning to work on cars, I always loved the teacher showing us the theory put into practice, I'm a complete idiot when it comes to electrical, but I learned because of the way it was presented, it was a practical example I could apply.
We can never know something unless enough of us believe it exists or at least can imagine it and we go looking for it.
Or we discover it by accident, or sometimes it takes the ball hitting you in the head to realize its there.
You wouldn't know what you're looking at or what hit you unless you first had some inkling of an idea about it and it fit within the worldview you've already adopted.
saw they agreed with formulas derived from observation
The formulas were created to satisfy the observations in the first place. It's logical predictability that matters. The formulas were based on observations first, which led to theories based on the inclusion of other observations, and these theories, as they were developed further, required that certain planets must exist that were never seen until they went looking for them in order to satisfy the theories.
The neutrino and the planet Neptune are cases in point.
Enrico Fermi first postulated the existence of the neutrino in order to explain the otherwise unexpected behavior that takes place when a neutron has been split into its component electron and proton parts. Rather than go back and reassess years of scientific law and theory and its ever-growing body of supporting evidence, a new piece of physical reality was essentially created in order to explain the unexpected phenomenon encountered. You could say that this postulation of Fermi’s was given enough positive consideration of thought over a long enough period of time that more evidence of it eventually began to arise, until it was eventually physically discovered and became established as an absolute of reality.
In the same way, the planet Neptune was first expected to exist before it was eventually discovered. It was the necessity for the planet’s existence in order to uphold previous understandings that led to a search for it, and the search eventually found what it was looking for. Had we not expected it and thus been prompted to look for it, we would not believe that it was out there, and it may as well not be.
You wouldn't know what you're looking at or what hit you unless you first had some inkling of an idea about it and it fit within the worldview you've already adopted.
Now we're getting into archetypes of human perception which is even deeper, and more occult.
It's predictability that matters.
In a way yes, in a way a certain amount of intuition exists, at least if you want to hit the ball correctly. At least if we're still using that metaphor.
Had we not expected it
Expecting specifics! Doesn't that fly in the face of quantum mechanics? Or maybe that's the ideal you try to approximate?
Hah I like this, in which way can we be quantum mechanics? Like when you can just eye out some salt for your soup, you've made the measurements, increased the senses involved with measuring salt to the point the measuring instruments are no longer necessary. You've made a quantum map in your mind and there's no expectation involved, the specifics just happen. It's like you're using the measuring instruments without using them, you've incorporated them into your being.
Now we're getting into archetypes of human perception which is even deeper, and more occult.
You're referring to one particular understanding of psychology that originates with Carl Jung, who I've never studied so I don't know much about it. But you can explain what you mean further if you'd like.
In a way yes, in a way a certain amount of intuition exists, at least if you want to hit the ball correctly. At least if we're still using that metaphor.
How can you have intuition without something to measure it against? What are you intuiting if you have no idea what to make of it, refer it to, understand it by? Is this what you meant by 'archetypes'?
Expecting specifics!
The expectation comes from the theory and the data that upholds it. There was a hole in the theory that needed to be filled in order for it to work. A specific solution was required.
Doesn't that fly in the face of quantum mechanics?
QM has certain aspects about it that make some things indeterminable (e.g. it is not possible to measure both the momentum and the location of a particle with any degree of accuracy), but that certainly isn't the whole of it. There are many things that can be determined about it, so it's still possible to study it and make observations that are predictable enough to explore it further.
Like when you can just eye out some salt for your soup, you've made the measurements, increased the senses involved with measuring salt to the point the measuring instruments are no longer necessary.
In this case, your eye is the measuring instrument. It calculates light frequencies, sizes, distances, etc. to gauge how much salt is in your hand. You also refer to memory to recall past experiences with salt and the amounts used previously to gauge the amount you want this time. You're so used to using your eyes to measure it that you don't consciously recognize all the work that goes into the task. It has become habituated into a subconscious process that was learned over time. When you were little you weren't so good at it and would often pour more salt than you really wanted, but learned through trial and error how much was the right amount. The memory of over-salted food and amounts used helped you to learn. This leads into the purpose of memory and the sense of past (and future), but that's for another discussion.
It's like you're using the measuring instruments without using them, you've incorporated them into your being.
A measuring instrument, i.e. a piece of scientific equipment that is used to make a measurement in a laboratory, is intended to be an extension of our human senses that accurately records data so that we can share that data with others and agree on it's accuracy, which then helps us to work together to solve problems, thus extending and joining the individual experiences of life into a collaborative event. Your eye measuring out salt is a rough way of measuring, while a scale that weighs the salt in exact amounts incorporates the data we have collaboratively learned from experience regarding weights and measures to help us. It's an example of how we can experience life beyond just a limited individual point of reference, and how the fundamental rules of nature tie us together in our otherwise separate experiences, suggesting a deeper unified purpose.
The way our eye (and brain) works at near-quantum levels suggests that we evolved from within or closer to the quantum level and learned through trial and error to develop certain functions and processes within ourselves that help us operate together more effectively, and from this came the rules of nature and the materials they work on that underlies what we call the physical world. Before all that we were just a potential.
(post is archived)