Advertisement
One afternoon(if memory serves righly it was in 1995) I was riding the city bus in Lakeland , Florida near where the former J.C. Penny department store building was ...which (by that time) had been purchased by some other business ...NOT a department store, and upon looking out the window of the city bus at people walking on the sidewalks or crossing streets ---either going to work, or going about other excursions ...it all suddenly looked very funny (though the people were not doing anything that would usually be considered funny ...it was just an average afternoon in town)...and I burst into something like a paroxysm of uncontrollable laughing .
I could hardly stop for quite some time ; it is a wonder I didn't fall out of my bus seat .
Taking apart the various components of mood and /or cognition , I report with accurate retrospection that it was as if the usual everyday sights lost their usual sense of dull mental habit associated with language ( i.e. the sense of habit what you call things and events either out loud , or inwardly.... in the internal dialogue) that for a moment there was an instant of raw seeing of such ordinary sights and sounds ...and the throwness of them as being thrown together in that particular ensemble in that particular time and space either
(A) seemed somehow absurd ...
or
(B) that it is seemed somehow unwieldy to fit that experience back into the usual descriptions of language (e.g. here are people crossing the street , walking on the sidewalks going to work, running errands ) .
I'm inclined to think the mentation involved was that of scenario (B) .
Yet I long to know what the deeper implication of that expereince is (if any) ?
Sometimes I laugh at apparently nothing, or nothing other than the walkabout daily events that aren't particularly funny--not at tragic events mind you (I certainly don't do that) but just the experience, say, of sitting on a chair, or being in the room . In recent years (in telephone discussions), my father has disclosed to me that he also laughs sometimes at apparently everyday events for no usual reason .
My uncle on my mother's side. Uncle Mike , who died in 2001 , would sometimes stand in front of a mirror and look at himself and burst out laughing intermittently .
What is the ideatum of such experiences ? What cosmic meanings do they signify , if any ?
(Yours truly is chary of using the term 'cosmic', because it is sometimes used as a vague superlative)
I could hardly stop for quite some time ; it is a wonder I didn't fall out of my bus seat .
Taking apart the various components of mood and /or cognition , I report with accurate retrospection that it was as if the usual everyday sights lost their usual sense of dull mental habit associated with language ( i.e. the sense of habit what you call things and events either out loud , or inwardly.... in the internal dialogue) that for a moment there was an instant of raw seeing of such ordinary sights and sounds ...and the throwness of them as being thrown together in that particular ensemble in that particular time and space either
(A) seemed somehow absurd ...
or
(B) that it is seemed somehow unwieldy to fit that experience back into the usual descriptions of language (e.g. here are people crossing the street , walking on the sidewalks going to work, running errands ) .
I'm inclined to think the mentation involved was that of scenario (B) .
Yet I long to know what the deeper implication of that expereince is (if any) ?
Sometimes I laugh at apparently nothing, or nothing other than the walkabout daily events that aren't particularly funny--not at tragic events mind you (I certainly don't do that) but just the experience, say, of sitting on a chair, or being in the room . In recent years (in telephone discussions), my father has disclosed to me that he also laughs sometimes at apparently everyday events for no usual reason .
My uncle on my mother's side. Uncle Mike , who died in 2001 , would sometimes stand in front of a mirror and look at himself and burst out laughing intermittently .
What is the ideatum of such experiences ? What cosmic meanings do they signify , if any ?
(Yours truly is chary of using the term 'cosmic', because it is sometimes used as a vague superlative)
posted by:
|
Florida
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:21 PMwhat does your extrapolation siginify?
your questioning pattern with anarchy.
I felt this way when younger also
now i am ground down, by the system
go to work, get a job, beat your wife etc.
its the way it';s supposed to be Jason
and if you ever think outside the box anymore, your not watching enough TV.
Books should all be burned by the way.
their nothing but trouble....................................................
and this internet thing?
trouble tooo.................. -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:48 PMI'm NOT sure what the significance of laughing at everday events is, Mr.Pure .
But I can tell you it is NOT thinking outside the box . I vehemently hate thinking outside the box .
I espouse thinking more deeply inside the box ---knowing every nook and cranny of the conceptual box . -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 8:43 AMAnyone else have a similar experience : I-Barb, Enrika, anyone else ? -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 9:51 AMyou were laughing at yourself, or no apparent reason, meaning you momentarily had no reason and laughed at that.
congrats for a brief moment of time that was neither absurd not devoid of joy.
an invisible feather sneaks up on you while you were looking away.
funny bones -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:56 PMFascinating proposal . -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 4:17 PMas long as we are still
having
fun
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 8:55 PMpp: Books should all be burned by the way.
521pm
well, jesus said 2000years ago said all written scripture
is dead.
who can argue with that?
-
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 4:41 PMYou had an existential tickle. Rejoice, as it is a sign of sanity. -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 4:51 PMPlease elaborate as to what sort of epistemological ramifications such an experience might have (if any) ?
-
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 5:26 PMYou may soon become aware of ironies, paradoxes, double meanings that are at once both true and uproariously false, absurdity in the slightest things, even yourself. Who knows? Profundity itself may await you.
Humor is a way of seeing, so you might very well loosen up and be funny, once the role of humor in the Larger Plan is revealed to you.
Then again, you could continue to repress all that and interpret it in light of your familiar obsessions, but why would you ask us if that were the case? -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 5:35 PMis this like when I heard barry mannilow songs in the 70s and couldn't understand why i liked them? -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 6:01 PM<<is this like when I heard barry mannilow songs in the 70s and couldn't understand why i liked them? >>
Yes.
You were prematurely retro and too-soon the ironist.
My own thing with Deep Purple is a little harder to explain... -
-
Curious about the song titled 'shooting shark'.
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 11:59 AMRockstar ,
Since you are quite well versed in Rock and Roll music, I was wondering if you could shed some light on a song by a certain band.
Back in the late autumn, or perhaps it was around December of 1983, there was a song called 'Shooting Shark' by a band called Blue Oyster Cult that when I heard it fascinated me .
There is a line in the song which read ,
'In my eyes I've seen the shooting shark lighting up the night .'
It is curious that he would use the term 'shark' for a sidereal object .
What might that song be about ? It puzzles me with a fascination . -
-
Re: Curious about the song titled 'shooting shark'.
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:07 PMYou'd be cute, and have an excuse for yourself, if you were 4.
At ten times that, you're nauseous and horrific. -
-
Re: Curious about the song titled 'shooting shark'.
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 3:21 PMLOKI POSTED :You'd be cute, and have an excuse for yourself, if you were 4.
At ten times that, you're nauseous and horrific.
RESPONSE: Who the Sam Hill asked you, mister ?
-
-
Re: less cowbell, more Buck Dharma!
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:23 PMI'm a *big* fan of BOC but never really cared for "Shooting Shark" all that much as a song. The lyrics, though, are good and from a poem by Patti Smith. They deal with pride and a busted love affair.
The shark is a sign in the sky telling her she's wrong to leave him. Being Patti, it *might* mean she should submit to being devoured!
Some of their songs DO exert the same fascination for me as "Shark" does for you. Interpreting BOC lyrics has its hazards, though. One of my favorites is "7 Screaming Diz-Busters", the lyrics of which sound like some kind of ancient mummy's curse, but the band swears it's about sex!
Ultimately, any rock n roll song is about what it means to you, as most ANY rocker songwriter will tell you. What does "7 Screaming Diz-Busters" mean? Well, the long and gorgeous "Lucifer the light" fadeout means, for me, the night I was hearing it through 'phones while walking through an unbelievably dangerous L.A. neighborhood in search of an underground Burner party. I rounded a few blocks from my destination to see red flashing lights from one mother fuckload of cop cars, all blinking away like blood-drenched strobes just as the vocalist is wailing-
"On each and all those holy nights
Where duster's dust becomes the sale
and Lucifer
[insert fucking awesome drum fill- rs]
The light."
At that point, the song crashes into the long exhilaratingly doomy chant of the last three words and I turned and slowly retraced my steps. Another weekend, another police raid and, like the singer, I couldn't stand the light. -
-
Re: less cowbell, more Buck Dharma!
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 3:36 PMROCKSTAR POSTED :I'm a *big* fan of BOC but never really cared for "Shooting Shark" all that much as a song. The lyrics, though, are good and from a poem by Patti Smith. They deal with pride and a busted love affair.
The shark is a sign in the sky telling her she's wrong to leave him. Being Patti, it *might* mean she should submit to being devoured! RESPONSE: Thank you . That apprently clears up something that has been an enigma for a long time now . That interpretation sounds plausible to me ... The shark like an emotionally devouring , haunting legacy ...
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Some of their songs DO exert the same fascination for me as "Shark" does for you. Interpreting BOC lyrics has its hazards, though. One of my favorites is "7 Screaming Diz-Busters", the lyrics of which sound like some kind of ancient mummy's curse, but the band swears it's about sex!
Ultimately, any rock n roll song is about what it means to you, as most ANY rocker songwriter will tell you.
RESPONSE: Well as an absolutist I'm a firm supporter in the "hegemony" of the metanarratives of authorial intent .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :What does "7 Screaming Diz-Busters" mean? Well, the long and gorgeous "Lucifer the light" fadeout means, for me, the night I was hearing it through 'phones while walking through an unbelievably dangerous L.A. neighborhood in search of an underground Burner party. I rounded a few blocks from my destination to see red flashing lights from one mother fuckload of cop cars, all blinking away like blood-drenched strobes just as the vocalist is wailing-
"On each and all those holy nights
Where duster's dust becomes the sale
and Lucifer
[insert fucking awesome drum fill- rs]
The light."
At that point, the song crashes into the long exhilaratingly doomy chant of the last three words and I turned and slowly retraced my steps. Another weekend, another police raid and, like the singer, I couldn't stand the light
RESPONSE: That is an intriguing association . Often there is a synesthesia to such associatiosn to songs and interesting synesthetic coincidences. When I hear the music of John Coltrane ---especially the work he did around 1968 , I think of ocean breezes for I recall listening to it at a couple named Nathan and Christy's place that wasn't too far from the ocean in Sarasota ---when I was over there in the spring of 1994 , and during that strange ethereal evening there were those ocean breezes blowing through their apartment on about dusk , while the John Coltrane recording was playing on Nathan's stereo . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: less cowbell, more Buck Dharma!
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:08 PM<< RESPONSE: Thank you . That apprently clears up something that has been an enigma for a long time now . That interpretation sounds plausible to me >>
You're entirely welcome. People often refer such questions to me, since I take rock and literature both pretty seriously.
<< RESPONSE: Well as an absolutist I'm a firm supporter in the "hegemony" of the metanarratives of authorial intent . >>
As am I, but I think its mistaken to call that "absolutism". Also, some of the greatest rock songwriters believed in authorial intent as well. John Lennon was one, tho' he would usually attribute layers and multiple meanings to his lyrics, good Joycean modernist that he was.
The trouble with your attitude in this is that rock music is POPULAR, not CHAMBER, music (I'm the rare rock critic that fancies classical- most of my peers are closet jazzbos). In such a form, hegemony *ain't* totality. People bring their own lives and reactions to it and the meaning shifts with each hearer. Rock lyrics are often so clipped and enigmatic the listener almost HAS to fill in with their own experience and songwriters KNOW this.
<< When I hear the music of John Coltrane ---especially the work he did around 1968 , I think of ocean breezes for I recall listening to it at a couple named Nathan and Christy's place that wasn't too far from the ocean in Sarasota ---when I was over there in the spring of 1994 , and during that strange ethereal evening there were those ocean breezes blowing through their apartment on about dusk , while the John Coltrane recording was playing on Nathan's stereo . >>
Lovely! A poetical observation! Will wonders never cease... ;)
-
-
Re: less cowbell, more Buck Dharma!
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:50 PMpp: and Lucifer
[insert fucking awesome drum fill- rs]
The light."
123pm
gee, do you know any satanists or luciferians
personally? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: less cowbell, more Buck Dharma!
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:51 PMand the thread was just starting to get interesting
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: blank and blanker verse
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 5:31 PM<< gee, do you know any satanists or luciferians
personally? >>
gosh, just how
"personal'"
are we talking about here? But
I *do* own every BOC studio album from
Tyranny and Mutation
to
Club Ninja, if that makes a
difference?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 11:52 AMROCKSTAR POSTED :You may soon become aware of ironies, paradoxes, double meanings that are at once both true and uproariously false, absurdity in the slightest things, even yourself. Who knows? Profundity itself may await you.
RESPONSE: The term 'paeradox' is a misnomer. Two mutual exclusive statemtns cannot both be true at the same time
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Humor is a way of seeing, so you might very well loosen up and be funny, once the role of humor in the Larger Plan is revealed to you.
RESPONSE: Now that is possible (when fenced about by some caveats) ..that part is indeed possible. My maternal Grandfather who I lived with and looked after for many years did exhort me to not neglect humor .
I asked because I have an earnest curiousity . -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 12:17 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"Two mutual exclusive statemtns cannot both be true at the same time."
light is a wave
light is a particle
the cat is both dead and alive!
0=2
i think the real question, "jason," is This: when your wave collapses, will you finally learn to surf?
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 1:19 PMscrew the surf
learn to
sail
cats...
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 6:14 PMSOLVE POSTED :Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"Two mutual exclusive statemtns cannot both be true at the same time."
light is a wave
light is a particle
RESPONSE: NOT at the same time . The two slit experiment seems to have a simultaneous registering of light as both but that is only apprent . We do not know it to be actually simultaneous registering , it merely seems to be given the claibration of the intruments we have .
SOLVE POSTED :the cat is both dead and alive!
RESPONSE: You are wrong , Solve. The cat may be dead in one timeline / universe , and alive in another. But it is not both dead and alive in the same universe . You've bought into hype about schrodinger's cat. I wonder if you also support the hype of Godel's so called proof which was shown to be NOT so by Gentzen's proof which used transfinite induction to show that a mathematical system can be both complete and consistent at the same time .
SOLVE POSTED : 0=2
RESPONSE: Zero does NOT equal 2 . -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 6:35 PM"RESPONSE: NOT at the same time . The two slit experiment seems to have a simultaneous registering of light as both but that is only apprent . We do not know it to be actually simultaneous registering , it merely seems to be given the claibration of the intruments we have . "
This is reminiscent of the dinosaur argument. Even thought science provides positive mountains of evidence that they existed and can determine the age as being far greater than the 6,000 some-odd years (the calculation of the Earth's age by the bible), some folks argue that they were put there by God to test their faith. -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 7:21 PM"RESPONSE: NOT at the same time . The two slit experiment seems to have a simultaneous registering of light as both but that is only apprent . We do not know it to be actually simultaneous registering , it merely seems to be given the claibration of the intruments we have . "
MOLLY POSTED :This is reminiscent of the dinosaur argument. Even thought science provides positive mountains of evidence that they existed and can determine the age as being far greater than the 6,000 some-odd years (the calculation of the Earth's age by the bible), some folks argue that they were put there by God to test their faith .
RESPONSE: The contexts of those sorts of arguments are so qualitatively different. That is an apples and peanuts comparison , Molly . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 8:50 PMExplain, please.
Instruments are used to determine both the age of fossils and to examine the properties of light. Why is one set of instruments trustworthy while the other is not? -
-
ANSWER FOR MOLLY on what the difference is .
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:17 PMMOLLY POSTED :Explain, please.
Instruments are used to determine both the age of fossils and to examine the properties of light. Why is one set of instruments trustworthy while the other is not?
RESPONSE: A slight range of lattitude / margin of error in strata dating , radiometric dating , and other methods of dating used by instruments used to date fossils (where the dating is often by a few years or even a few 10 or maybe a hundred) does NOT have much ramifications . Inductively speaking, the case that the fossils are often millions and in some cases billions of years old is pretty well established .
In the case of the two slit photon experiment ---where the instruments seem to show *apprent* simultaeousness of the light quanta registering as a wave with the detector behind one slit , and a photon particle in the other ---yet where there may be a fraction of a second difference ---with the possibility remaining that the appearance of simulateousness could be spurious ..DOES have huge ramifications in terms of the ontology of light.
A fraction of a second difference ---which the current instruments may not be subtle enough to calibrate---could make all the difference for the light to change its configuration so as to appear in one register behind one slit as a particle and the other slit as a wave . Thus, the prospect of a fraction of a second's time uncalibrated by the present level of instruments --enough time for the structure of a body of light to change---means that the jury certainly ain't in on that notion touted by relatives that light is somehow allegedly a particle and a wive at the same time .
The most intellectually honest assessment of the matter is that it merely SEEMS to be both a particle and a wave at the same time .... -
-
Re: ANSWER FOR MOLLY on what the difference is .
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:31 PMSo there is no proof either way? That means you have no way of knowing if light is a particle and a wave at the same time, you can only form a personal belief. Certainly, the evidence suggests that it is possible. The application of Occam's Razor would make it probable. -
-
Re: ANSWER FOR MOLLY on what the difference is .
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:39 PMMOLLY POSTED :So there is no proof either way?
RESPONSE: No way of knowing with the present level of technology. As time goes on the technlogy will be honed .
MOLLY POSTED :That means you have no way of knowing if light is a particle and a wave at the same time, you can only form a personal belief.
RESPONSE: Caution is in order is the lesson to be learned . That the jury is still out on whether measurements that are apparently simultaneous are actually simultaneous or not , means that the logical law of NON-contradiction (a deductively logical law ...NOT a mere physically inductive scientifuc law) which has precedent still stands. The law of Non-contradiction that states that two or more statements which propose mutually exclusive propositions can NOT all be true at the same time, has more precedent and so , the burden of proof still lays on those who would present a notion contrary to it .
MOLLY POSTED :Certainly, the evidence suggests that it is possible.
RESPONSE: No, the evidence does *not* suggest either way as to whether it is is or isn't possible . The most maximal epistemological claim one can rightfully state about the results of the two slit light experiment is that one must be agnostic (NOT agnostic about the existence of God--the adjective 'agnostic' can be predicated about *other* matters than the Existence of God ) about whether or not the detections of a particle and wave take place at the same time or merely seem to (due to the limitations of the present devices) . All one can righly state in interpreting the results is that the jury is still out as to whether the detections happen at the same time or not .
MOLLY POSTED :The application of Occam's Razor would make it probable.
RESPONSE: Occam 's Razor at best is merely useful-- in a serendiptious sense-- with *inductive* matters . It has at most a fortuitous correspondence ( what might call an epistemic LUCK) with hypothesis involving competing physical inductive scenarios vying for scientific acceptance . Ockham ' s Razor does NOT hold any sway over matters of ontological identity ---those call, instead, for *deductive* yardsticks to evaluate .
Thus, Ockham's Razor holds NO sway of the matter of the structural identity of light . -
-
Re: ANSWER FOR MOLLY on what the difference is .
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 5:21 PMI don't really mind one way or the other, although a contradiction would be interesting. You, however, seem very emotionally invested in the law of non-contradiction. You busted out the all caps, even. Why is that? -
-
Re: ANSWER FOR MOLLY on what the difference is .
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 5:24 PMcaps are a waste of time
-
Re: ANSWER FOR MOLLY on what the difference is .
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:11 AMMOLLY POSTED :I don't really mind one way or the other, although a contradiction would be interesting.
RESPONSE : Why would it be interesting ?
MOLLY POSTED :You, however, seem very emotionally invested in the law of non-contradiction. You busted out the all caps, even. Why is that?
RESPONSE : The deductive law of NON-contradiction should be acknowledged , otherwise, if it is disavowed, then thought ...all propositions then are treated as mere gambits in a game. Thought, becomes anti-climatic/ duplicious ...
(And by anti-climatic, I do *not* refer to climax in any sexual sense of the word ) .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:24 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"RESPONSE: Zero does NOT equal 2 . "
of course it does.
singularity is impossible, "jason." the basic states of the universe are either "nothing" or "Something and Other Thing that is not the first Something."
Had and Nuit, Nu and Hadit. the first line of the first and second chapters of Liber AL vel Legis. the concept, on one plane at least, is a metaphor of Point Of View - one can take the point of view of the infinitely large and plunge towards the infinitely small, or one can take the opposite view. either way, Naught is the result of union.
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:42 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"RESPONSE: Zero does NOT equal 2 . "
of course it does.
SOLVE POSTED ::singularity is impossible, "jason." the basic states of the universe are either "nothing" or "Something and Other Thing that is not the first Something."
RESPONSE : On what grounds ?
SOLVE POSTED :Had and Nuit, Nu and Hadit. the first line of the first and second chapters of Liber AL vel Legis. the concept, on one plane at least, is a metaphor of Point Of View - one can take the point of view of the infinitely large and plunge towards the infinitely small, or one can take the opposite view. either way, Naught is the result of union.
RESPONSE: From what discipline (if any) is that nomenclature (if you can call it that) derived ? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 12:26 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"RESPONSE: From what discipline (if any) is that nomenclature (if you can call it that) derived ? "
*chuckle* i think you'll have fun googling it.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
-
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 7:43 AMwaves can be choppy
and particles put on a string.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 10:53 AMhow sad -
-
Re: Anyone Have A Similar Experience ?
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 7:44 AMand the butterfly effect is as much about atmosphere as a flutterfly ever was.
-
-
-
