Isn't there a gray area in the interpretation of MBT on this issue? On where to draw the line? Where does the rule set end and belief begin?

I think that there is no such clear cut line. Just like everything, it isn't objectively established. The line is drawn by the individuals entropy level. The lower entropy the lesser matters the rule-set.

as shown here:



There is another issue here that I'm unsure how to deal with. One thread earlier this year touched on whether chakras were merely metaphores or rule-set. My take on this is that it is a rule set in the 'astral' level, and just like earth rule-set they are a given system of functioning, a energy system, but with lesser force needed to manifest change. there is more to be said on this. how does it sound?

kristian

Belief begins the moment you haven't experienced something for yourself.

_________________
http://unlimitedboundaries.ca/

And then there is the belief one experiences about something one has experienced for oneself. Such a Tangled Web.

_________________
"All the world's a Stage and all the men and women merely players, They have their exits and their entrances and ONE man in his time plays many parts, his acts beings Heaven ages"---Shakespeare

Kristian,

There is more than one version of beliefs about Chakras. What does that tell you about chakras versus the rule set of the VR. Would there not be only one configuration 'observable' if it were part of the rule set?

Ted

I agree and it is tangled indeed. thanks, guys.

belief is not the matter here, though.. I could've used other words.



you know what I mean. the concept that when there is a rule-set, we cannot change it. but actually everything conceivable is inherently built with rule-sets. so everything is different "degrees" of rule-sets. PMR rule-set is the level of rule-set strictness that we at our level are training on adjusting with our will. this does not mean i think someone close to our level are capable of shapeshifting or regrowing tissue (edit: actually I do believe that. not exactly my level, maybe), but somewhere on our path in a not so distant future, yes, we can. it's a matter of our entropy level, not the rule-set. capiche? agree?

you have a point there, but there could very well be different structures of observations. It is here on earth and in science. isn't it?

Yes, you are right. There is the view that the earth is flat and the view that the earth is round. The view that the earth rotates around the sun and vice versa. There is the view that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle. Those views do change with time. Actually the viewpoint that there are chakras can be extended and has been extended by different metaphysical systems. There can apparently be as many chakras as there are metaphysicians to split hairs. There are thought systems that link the chakras, which are not necessarily demonstrable, to the meridians of Chinese acupuncture which are clearly demonstrable but not linkable to structures that are know to western science that I am aware of as neural paths, blood flow paths, lymphatic paths nor to organs as they are normally considered and observed or some other kind of 'physical' structure observable within the body.

We don't precisely know the rule set but there is generally an agreement called the scientific method as to how to go about discovering and verifying them. But that gets into further disagreement as to what precisely the scientific method is and who is orthodox and who is heretical, etc. We are participating in a general sense in another turnover of beliefs in reverting to the paradigm that reality is based upon consciousness. Ultimately, it is all metaphor as it is based ultimately upon the Void and total randomness. It all depends upon where you want to get off the bus. I think that it can be safely stated that there is a rule set as it seems to be defended by the CS with the PUP and there is a consistency in general to the functioning of the VR. Whether ultimately you believe that includes the chakras and how many there are is I guess up to you. I have not seen an argument in favor of their existence in the sense that the existence of our heart, brain, liver, etc. are demonstrable.

Ted

thank you , Ted.

one wonders: did the early murderers determine the appearance of our entrails? is that why they're so sickening?

If person A goes to Planet X and comes back saying "I observed red rocks there." And if Persons B, C, D... each independently go to Planet X, and, without knowledge of others' observations, come back to say "I observed red rocks there", then we may infer, IMO, that there is something associated with Planet X such that the default structure of the data (for this observer set) can be reliably modeled as 'red rocks'; that is to say, there really is 'red rocks' there, at least in so much as anything exists at all.

It is the same with chakras. Many observers have independently noted this phenomena,....

: but not all. Some people will go to NYC and never notice what the rest of the bell curve of observers will take quick account of, passing up, in their turn, what caught the eye of the others.

I suspect that data has structure, whether I perceive that structure or not; Too, models of structure, (which can be said to be a secondary form of data), seldom capture all the data that they might hope to refer to.... if they did, after all, they'd be as good as the real thing. (It being understood that perception is an (usually) unconscious modeling of data (sensation)).

Montana

I'll share some instructive thoughts here that might fit. It have helped me broaden my understand of broadening of understanding. for those with time and interest. and eyes. or glasses. the pages weren't available online, so I took pictures. that was difficult because the light escaped. and then there is a max size on uplaoding files. if i just wrote it it would have taken half the time, but.. this is way cooler. it is. "Ctrl+" to enlarge screen. "Ctrl-" to reduce size.

the first paragraph on both files are included for the sake of context.

Paul Feyerabend "Aginst Metod" fourth edition, page 154-. http://books.google.com/books?id=8y-FVt ... &q&f=false


Nelson Goodman "Ways of Worldmakin" page 92-. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y5aMV3 ... &q&f=false


kristian

If you do not have a scanner or at least a flash for your camera, I suggest the use of a reasonable lighting level to take photographs. If you cannot get more contrast in your photographs, then I suggest some form of image modification with a program. Some of this is unreadable or nearly so. Beyond the point where I care to try.

I further suggest that you position the images one above the other by rearranging the insertions on the page so they are on separate lines. I have a 30" monitor and still had trouble getting to the full width. The references to the images can simply be reordered with the text or on the blank lines. Check the results with preview until you get readable pages.

I suggest major re editing of this post above.

Ted

believe it or not, i used a lot of light. flash resulted in a bright white picture without any text. a picture-program is the only untried possibility. maybe I'll try that later when I get home. But they're not that unreadable.. Try to adjust your screen brighter? more contrast. or leave the secrets of the universe alone. (to have been so close!)

They may be readable to you but not to me. After cataract surgery I had an infection in my right eye as the surgery is performed in an office rather than a surgical environment. I now have a considerable distortion in my right retina. Combine that with the lack of contrast and I find them not usefully readable. That's why I have the 30" monitor which is quite bright if contrast is available so I can see things at a reasonable size. That is why I advocated for the color scheme for the BB and the Wiki as otherwise with the default environment, you are looking at the equivalent of an arctic landscape of glare white and pale blues under bright sun which is equally a problem to me. Those books must be printed on very strange paper.

Ted

hi Ted. i hope you wont let the eye and sight condition get the best of you:). what doesn't kill you make you stronger :). Every challenge is a gift:).

this should be better:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8y-FVt ... &q&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=Y5aMV3 ... &q&f=false

I was going to redo this entirely from the Google references you include using the Windows snipping tool to create the images. However those Google links do not provide the pages you include. They terminate much earlier in the text. That is a better way to do this in terms of readability if you can find the book pages you want scanned somewhere on the Internet. If you have links to the actual pages you want, this is very quick and produces much better and readable results. Google makes sure their scans are legible.

Ted