<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">#qt p.qt-MsoNormal{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}
#qt a:link{color:blue;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-style:solid;text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-thickness:auto;}
#qt li.qt-qt-msonormal2,#qt p.qt-qt-msonormal1{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}
#qt p.qt-qt-qt-msonormal1{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}
#qt ol{margin-bottom:0in;}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">Steve,<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Timothy Leary became a big fan of computer-mediated perception but the whole movement fell apart, because of technical limitations extant for computers at the time, but mostly from a lack of imagination - the "virtual realities" that people tried to create were too solidly grounded in "this reality."<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, at 9:39 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><p><i>On the Utility of
Perception/Mood/Judgement/Inhibition-Altering conditions and
Reality</i><br></p><p>It feels as if this subset of FriAM has begun to converge on a
common discussion, albeit from different perspectives with
different assumptions and different judgements. Let me add my own
subroutine to the annealing schedule:<br></p><p>Re: Dave's communion with a faux Brigham Young in the desert in
front of a virtual burning bush (erh... campfire). I think Dave
will agree that the specific imagery of one of the most revered
elders in the faith-tradition he was raised in is not coincidental
for him to "consult" while on a mystical quest to untangle a
Gordian knot central to his identity and place in the world. I
think he would NOT expect anyone without that embedding to meet
Brigham or Joseph. A good friend/colleague a few years my elder
likes to make the deliberate mis-statement "too much LDS in the
sixties" to describe people whose perceptions are not aligned with
his own. <br></p><p>Among FriAMsters, there would be some here who would instead
meet Peirce or Einstein or Newton or even Aquinas or Aristotle.
Sarbajit or Mohammed would more likely meet a character from their
own pantheons. Others might commune with Coyote or Raven or a
Tree. And rather than a discussion, they might have a wrestling
match or flying contest or illicit orgy to work on their Gordian
Knot of choice.<br></p><p>Eric's point that the apocryphal Benzene-as-Ouroboros ultimately
yielded insight about circularity/ringness/closedness, while the
snake/dragon/worm aspect was discarded as "excess meaning" (to try
to use Glen's terminology?). Dave's "vision in the desert
mountains" might have lead to insights (loosening/re-arranging of
his Gordian Knot regarding the ?pro-female? Ibrahamic religions)
and maybe some insights about his own relationship to the
Patriarchy in which he was raised, but he would probably NOT
prescribe to any of us NOT from the LDS fold to jack up on
pain/drugs/breathing and go to that particular arroyo/wash and
expect to meet Brigham Young. <br></p><p>Dave's metaphor of a sieve with square and triangular holes and
whether it passes spheres well if at all is a very loosely
applicable one I suppose, if you assume a specific size or shapes
that are not symmetric (geometric cross-sections rather than
tetrahedra/cubes/spheres). Certainly more complex semi-permeable
membranes which select for shape would be yet more apt. <br></p><p>I very strongly agree with his analysis that in our multi-scale
adaptation to our environment and the threats/opportunities
offered against our survival/procreation unction (deeper than, but
presented as instincts?) has lead us to have some pretty specific
filters. As multicellular, warm-blooded vertebrates with highly
developed visual and linguistic neural mechanisms we are both
*highly adaptable* and *somewhat specific* at the same time. We
probably can't perceive/think very well in the milieu that the
great cetaceans do (communication over vast distances, a mostly 3D
volumetric domain with relatively "boring-to-them" surfaces,
etc.) and vice-versa. <br></p><p>Given this, anything that helps us make excursions (excurde?)
from the envelopes of perception we have co-created with our
environments (built environments, infrastructures, etc.) has the
potential for expanding our awareness and admitting qualitatively
new insights into "the nature of reality" (assuming there IS such
a thing as an objective reality outside of our
individual/collective selves). <br></p><p>I personally use computer-mediated perception (including
simulation models and visual-auditory-haptic synthetic sensoria)
to try to achieve this expanded awareness/insight into real-world
phenomena, but with a tacit goal of being able to "find my way
back" and "lead someone else there", or better yet "kit others out
to find their own way".<br></p><p> The early "mountain men" of US expansion were perhaps most
effective if they *didn't* function well in polite society, or at
least were tuned to perform much better *outside of* polite
society. But if they didn't bother to come back TO society
(recross the Mississippi to the bars/brothels for the dead of
winter, profligately spending up their wealth of beaver-pelts or
gold nuggets) or were unable to articulate *where* they had been
(even through tall tales, but possibly through detailed
journals/maps) and what they had seen, then they didn't provide
much utility to the rest of us. Similarly opium eaters and other
mystics who simply fall into their own navels and/or return from
such journeys a raving lunatics (of any amplitude) don't
(superficially?) offer us a lot. On the other hand, those of us
who can *tolerate* what seem like wild ravings long enough hear
the signal in the noise *might* learn something, just as the
bar/brothel-keeps who humored/endured/embraced the trappers and
lone-prospectors who wintered among them might very well have
learned a LOT about the plains and the Rockies and the great basin
and Sierras, etc. by listening well and sorting out the tall tales
from the factual information, or perhaps more aptly, being able to
reduce the colorful descriptions to more mundane ones... knowing
when "thousands and thousands" means "hundreds" or when "streams
glittering with gold" actually refer to iron pyrite deposits...
etc.<br></p><p>Walter Jon Williams, a successful but not all that famous Science
Fiction writer from ABQ (Belen?) wrote a novel in the 90's
entitled "HardWired" which was set in the Albuqurque-Flatstaff
strip city of the near future. His protaganist was some kind of
hardboiled futuristic private detective, but the salient feature
was that he had 3 "pumps" (one Red, one White, one Blue) wired
into his body, not unlike an insulin pump or a morphine drip.
They appeared to be fairly well-accepted future tech, with the
unintended side effects of the Red/White/Blue pharmaceuticals
being minimal or at least understood. As this character went
through his daily routine of seeking out the bad guys or fighting
the powers that be (I forget the nature of the antagonists), he
would dose himself with "white" to raise his energy and perceptual
acuity, or "red" to take the edge off of the last dose of "white"
or to allow his body/mind to rest/relax/refresh or counteract his
basal biochemistry of adrenals to remain "cool" in a harsh
situation. He reserved "blue" for expanding his
awareness/sensorium to seek subtle clues or better insight into a
problem. It was the first time I had found perception/mood
altering drug-use as anything but self-indulgent self-abuse. Of
course, the framing in the story was that this was all highly
technically defined and controlled and as I remember it the
protaganist had a strong sense of his own limits of how far to
expand his perception/performance envelope with these drugs.
Reducing it to a tristimulus red/white/blue basis vector to
convolve with the higher-dimensional biochemical/perceptual/mood
space of an unmodified human was a new way of seeing "drug
culture" for me. Being of the emerging cyberpunk genre, it
nicely mixed the human-enhancement of hard tech with
pharmacuetical-tech.<br></p><p>Another writer (recently deceased), Vonda McIntyre, wrote "Of
Mist, Grass, and Sand" with a more biogenic version of this
deliberate dosing, though more in the context of healing using
three snakes and their venom which they would reformulate after
"tasting" their patients... generating appropriate sedatives,
anti-biotic/viral/toxins, or hallucinagens according to their
"needs". Written in the late 60s, there was a strong overtone of
the drug-culture and undercurrent of back-to-nature of the time.<br></p><p>Ramble,<br></p><p> - Steve<br></p><div class="qt-moz-cite-prefix">On 2/24/20 9:16 AM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com" class="qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote cite="mid:044d01d5eb2d$b9962c20$2cc28460$@gmail.com" type="cite"><div class="qt-WordSection1"><p class="qt-MsoNormal">David,<br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Well, Peirce begins with the premise that
doubt is a painful state and that violation of expectations
leads to doubt. Let say, for a moment, that you were wired up
so that doubt is a joyful state. That would lead you across
the map of experience by a very different route than I am
led. Now even Peirce admits that a little bit of doubt can
be diverting. He has an example of passing time between
connections at a train station by entertaining doubts as to
the best route to take from one city to another. So, the
doubt-pleasure-doubt-pain thing seems to be a dimension, even
in Peirce. Heck, even I enjoy a little bit of doubt in my
life. But from my years-ago reading of Castenada and talking
to people who enjoyed hallucinogens, I am pretty sure taking
drugs would too much doubt for this old apollonian. <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Now this would explain why Peirce is of so
little use to you. The test for reality for Peirce is
predictability. In my discussion, and perhaps Eric’s, we have
been asking you to apply that test to your experiences. I E,
if your experiences in extremis don’t lead to a capacity to
predict better and experience less doubt, then to hell with
them. But if you love doubt, then Peirce’s pragmaticism is of
no use to you. Am I getting closer?<br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal">But there is another possibility. Konrad
Lorenz, the ethologist who won a Nobel with Tinbergen and
vonFrisch, loved to talk about the “Innate School Marm”. I
think of her as sitting at the head of the room, with a box of
tiny but potent candies on her desk. Every time a student
does something “good”, she gives him or her one of these
little candies. Now, the brain (OH GOD HERE I AM A
BEHAVIORIST TALKING ABOUT THE BRAIN) seems to be wired up like
the I.S.M. It has at its disposal a pot of pleasure from
which it doles out little dollops as we go through our day.
When we take drugs, it’s like the day when the bad boys in the
class stole the box of candies, locked themselves in the
storeroom, and consumed them all at once. You have
overthrown the Innate School Marm. <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Nick<br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Nicholas Thompson<br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Psychology<br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Clark University<br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><div><div style="border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-image-outset:0;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-top-color:rgb(225, 225, 225);border-top-style:solid;border-top-width:1pt;padding-top:3pt;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;"><p class="qt-MsoNormal"></p><div><b>From:</b> Friam <a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" class="qt-moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Prof
David West<br></div><div> <b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 24, 2020 3:27 AM<br></div><div> <b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" class="qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated">friam@redfish.com</a><br></div><div> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's
question<br></div><p></p></div></div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Nick,</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Not
dismissive,but definitely skeptical.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">A
metaphorical account of my problem.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Since the
Age of Enlightenment, a host of people interested in
knowledge, how we know, what we can know, what we can take
as "fact," what might be deemed as "truth," etc. have
developed philosophies and methods to answer these
questions. Peirce is but one example.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Visualize
that all of this thinking resulted in a really
fine-grained sieve, through which we could pour our raw
"stuff" and have it sort out the useful from the non.
Upon close examination we note that the holes in the sieve
consist, exclusively, of triangles and squares.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">My
"stuff" consists of spheres. None of my spheres can pass
through the sieve, not because they are absent of, at
least potentially, "knowledge" or "fact" or "truth:" but
only because they are spherical and the sieve cannot deal
with them.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Those
responsible for creating the sieve and those who have made
careers using the sieve to sift and sort "stuff" tend to
hold the attitude that <u>Our Sieve </u>is the best
sieve that human minds could possibly conceive and
therefore anything not Sieve-able is irrelevant and of no
possible value.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Peirce
has produced a very fine sieve, but it is of no, (or very
little), use to me. This was a disappointing discovery,
for me, because, at least initially, I thought Peirce
admitted a bit of the mystical into his philosophy.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">******</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">There
have been sieve-makers who specialize in circles instead
of triangles and squares. I have studied many of them,
noting consistencies and differences. I also "know" where
one "has got it right" and another "just misses the mark."
But how do I "know" this?</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Two years
ago, I was driving overnight from Salt Lake City to Santa
Fe to come to FRIAM. En route, just southeast of Moab, I
stopped to have a conversation with Brigham Young. (A
combination of pain, drugs, and Hatha Yoga made this
possible.) The conversation concerned the reasons and
mechanisms responsible for the evolution of very
pro-female religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,
Mormonism) to near absolute misogyny. I took notes and
later went back to see if Brigham had actually said any of
this while he was alive. He did. I had read all of that
material decades ago. What was the mechanism that
allowed/prompted the mental coalescence of that
information into a cogent conversation in a dry wash,
sitting naked, next to an imaginary campfire, with
Brigham's "presence" in the shadows? Could it be
replicated? Could I drop a bit of acid and use the same
"method" to write an academic paper — or at least a good
first draft of one?</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">In
Buddhism there is no "self." So what is it that
reincarnates? I "know" the answer.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Right now
I am trying to sort out an amalgam of process philosophy
(Bergson, Whitehead), Hermeneutics (Heidegger), quantum
interpretations, quantum consciousness, embodied mind and
a couple of other threads; and from that mixture craft a
"lens" through which I can examine all that I have read
about Zen, alchemy, hermetic, Sufism, ... and all the
other esoterica (and first hand experience) I have
absorbed over the decades.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Open for
suggestions.</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">[An
aside: discounting Kekule's Ouroboros dream would be
easier were it not for the fact that his notation and a
host of other organic chemistry derived from dreams of
atoms dancing, holding hands, and forming chains. Benzene
was but one of many instances of his "dream induced
chemistry."]</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">davew</span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, at 6:16 PM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote id="qt-qt" style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt;"><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Dave,<br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">You have indulged me as much as any
other human on earth, and so it distresses me to hear you
say that I would dismiss experiences in extremis out of
hand. Let it be the case that Archimedes solved the
king’s crown problem while lolling in a hot bath. Let it
be the case that Kerkule solved the benzene problem while
lolling in a hot bath. Let it be the case that Watson and
Crick were lolling in a hot bath (oh those Brits!) when
they discovered the double helix. I would say that, there
was SOME grounds (however weak) to suspect that hot
bathing led to scientific insight. In fact, it is one of
the great advantages of Peirce’s position that weak
inductions and abduction have the same <i>logical</i> status as strong ones and worthy always to be
entertained. I DON’T believe, as I think many do, that
extreme experiences have any special claim on wisdom.
Dying declarations are attended to NOT because a dying
person necessarily has great wisdom, but because we are
unlikely to hear from that person again in the future. <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">I suppose you might ague that the
reason to go to extreme states is the same as the reason
to go the Antarctic or the moon. There MIGHT be something
interesting there, but until you have been there, you will
never know, for sure, will you? The crunch comes when you
are deciding on how much resources to devote to the
exploration of extremes, given that those resources will
be subtracted from those devoted to the stuff such known
realities as climate change. If it’s a choice of
exploring Mars or exploring climate change, you know where
my vote would go.<br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">But that has no bearing on whether
I would encourage or discourage anyone to go with their
individual curiosity. One of our number here is
interested in exploring a variant of ESP. I say let’s
go! <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Nick<br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Nicholas Thompson<br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Emeritus Professor of Ethology
and Psychology<br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Clark University<br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><div><div style="border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-top-color:rgb(225, 225, 225);border-top-style:solid;border-top-width:1pt;padding-top:3pt;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-image-outset:0;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;"><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Prof David West<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 23,
2020 4:15 AM<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] A
longer response to Dave's question<br></p></div></div></div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Eric,
Nick, et.al.,</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-qt-e24kjd">"Well,
[Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me
into."</span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">My
issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I
want to determine if there are ways to think about
it in a "useful" manner.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">The
"stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions,
observations, conjectures, metaphors and models,
even theory. The problem is provenance: directly or
indirectly from, loosely defined, altered states of
consciousness. Examples of indirect would be reports
from enlightened mystics or dream experiences (ala
Kekule or Jung). Direct would be psychedelics.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Nick
might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it
has the same value as the latest Marvel universe
movie.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">I
disagree. But, by what means, what method, can
"fact" even "truth" be discovered and shared. Peirce
offers no real assistance. Nor does any other school
of epistemology I have encountered.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Is
there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that
would, at minimum, enable more consistent discovery
of examples like Eric cites in #8 of his list. Would
it not be useful to be able to quickly identify and
focus on insights with the potential to "hold up
pretty well."</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Eric
states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that
altered states are less reliable, but I would argue,
in some cases, the exact opposite. Especially with
regard the ability to perceive stimuli of which
perceive but never consciously "register" because
our brain has filtered them out as being irrelevant.
Mescaline can be an instrument as revealing as a
microscope or a telescope and it would be
worthwhile, I think, to learn how to make effective
use of it.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">The
crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in
them thar hills, but don't have a means of mining
and refining.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">davew</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41
PM, Eric Charles wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote id="qt-qt-qt" style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt;"><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">If we are willing to go back
and forth a bit between being philosophers and
psychologists for a moment, there are far more
interesting things to talk about regarding "altered
states".... here are the some of the issues: <br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><div><ol style="margin-top:0in;" type="1" start="1"><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">When someone claims to be responding to
something, we should believe they are responding
to <i>something</i>. <br></li><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">People generally suck at stating what they
are responding to, even in highly mundane
situations. <br></li><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">It is worth studying any types of
experiences that lead fairly reliably to other
certain future experiences, because in such
situations one has a chance discover what it is
people are <i>actually </i>responding to. <br></li><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">As we are complex dynamic systems, human
development is affected by all sorts of things in
non-obvious ways.<br></li><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">There is no <i>a priori </i>reason to
discount the insights one experiences under
"altered states of consciousness", but also no <i>a
priori</i> reason to give them special
credence. <br></li><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">The degree to which a someone has a sense of
certainty about something is not generally a
reliable measure of how likely that thing is to
hold up in the long run, unless many, many, many
other assumptions are met.<br></li><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">There is likely good reason to think that
altered states of consciousness are less reliable
in general than "regular" states.<br></li><li style="" class="qt-qt-msonormal2">There are many examples that suggest certain
insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well,
which were first experienced when under an altered
state, were unlikely to have been experienced
without that altered state. <br></li></ol><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Is that the
type of stuff we were are poking at?<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">-----------<br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Eric P.
Charles, Ph.D.<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Department
of Justice -
Personnel Psychologist<br></p></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">American
University - Adjunct Instructor<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:30
PM Frank Wimberly <<a href="mailto:wimberly3@gmail.com">wimberly3@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote style="border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5pt;border-top-color:currentcolor;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-image-outset:0;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;"><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Agreed<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">---<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Frank C. Wimberly, PhD<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">505 670-9918<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Santa Fe, NM<br></p></div></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">On Sat, Feb 22, 2020,
12:25 PM Marcus Daniels <<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a>>
wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote style="border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5pt;border-top-color:currentcolor;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-image-outset:0;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;"><div><div><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal1">Frank writes:<br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><It would
constitute proof that Marcus exists if he
were to admit that I was correct in our
years-ago argument when I said that gender
defines an equivalence relation on the set
of people.><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal1">Definitions.
Notation. Argh, who cares. Where’s that
neuralyzer, let me get rid of them.<br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal1">(That should at
least be evidence of continuity!)<br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal1">Marcus<br></p></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">============================================================<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">FRIAM Applied
Complexity Group listserv<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30
at cafe at St. John's College<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">============================================================<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">FRIAM Applied Complexity
Group listserv<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
cafe at St. John's College<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">============================================================<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">FRIAM Applied Complexity Group
listserv<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
at St. John's College<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1">FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"> <br></p></div></blockquote><div><p class="qt-qt-msonormal1"><span class="qt-font"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">============================================================<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St.
John's College<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div></blockquote><div><p class="qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span><br></p></div></div><div><br></div><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre" wrap="">============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove
<br></pre></blockquote><div>============================================================<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></div><div>to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br></div><div>archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>