Something about love waves and the heart

[Ophiolite]

Poetry and science are different Metatron:

1. Would you agree?

2. Which are you posting?

[reverse]

as far as i can tell, you havent actually explained what love waves actualy do.

 

I like waves.

especially three dimensional spherical radiated waves...

 

and multiple point generations sources.... all overlapping creating nodes.

 

I hope one day that we will find out that reality waves,

and that light is the basic unit of all things.

 

I even heard that gravity might be mediated by the photon.

 

As for what love waves do...they make you jealous , feel like not eating... make you sit for hours watching the light reflect off the face of a loved one...that sort of thing.

[metatron]

I like waves.

especially three dimensional spherical radiated waves...

 

and multiple point generations sources.... all overlapping creating nodes.

 

I hope one day that we will find out that reality waves' date='

and that light is the basic unit of all things.

 

I even heard that gravity might be mediated by the photon.

 

As for what love waves do...they make you jealous , feel like not eating... [b']make you sit for hours watching the light reflect off the face of a loved one..[/b].that sort of thing.

 

 

Yes , I couldn’t have put it any better than that, Thanks.

[metatron]

Poetry and science are different Metatron:

1. Would you agree?

2. Which are you posting?

 

When done right' date=' science is poetry, and visa versa.

 

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/science/poetry001016.html

[i']

Science and Poetry

by our Science Editor, Laura Durnford

Surprising Similarities

A final take for now on the similarities between science and poetry comes from English poet and writer, Lavinia Greenlaw. In 1995 she was ‘Poet in Residence' at the Science Museum in London. Although putting poetry and science together in this way was a groundbreaking idea, Lavinia says that scientists and poets share certain qualities. "The point at which science and poetry come closest is perception and where that meets imagination – so, where you're looking at something and also trying to imagine something about it in order to understand it. And a good poet is also a good technician; to finish a poem and to let it become independent from you, you have to distance yourself and judge its shape and form, whether it worked – and those things involve craft and understanding."

 

If one of the aims of this kind of scheme is for poetry to make science more accessible to the public, Lavinia explains how this might work. "I guess what I can do is show the human applications and remind people that science stems[/i] from human and our experience of the world. And in that sense it is as subjective as poetry."

[metatron]

‘Science is the only way to understand the real world“; Richard Dawkins

 

“Toothache is as real as teeth” Mary Midgley

[metatron]

 

so far' date=' you have not presented any evidence or an explination as to why your theory of 'love waves' is nessesaraly true (for example, what does your theory explain that science currently cannot). as far as i can tell, you havent actually explained what love waves actualy do.[/quote']

In this context, they can be thought as an evolutionary mechanism that rewards with a feeling, a resonance, after a balance is achieved between the layered matrices of the self and others, or the universe at large.

[metatron]

well' date=' i assumed that the point of posting and discussing your idea was to get people to accept it [/b'] -- i was merely pointing out that, as scientists, we require evidence and locialy sound hypothesys before we will accept ideas.

 

so far, you have not presented any evidence or an explination as to why your theory of 'love waves' is nessesaraly true (for example, what does your theory explain that science currently cannot). as far as i can tell, you havent actually explained what love waves actualy do.

 

 

 

No, This is not my purpose, My purpose is to garner feed back to gain perspective and inspire thought in myself, and others.

 

Like I’ve said before, we are working from two different veiw points, or conceptual models, you are working at gaining a social consensus, while I am attempting to gathering information though investigation, by the utilizing a "praxes".

 

Praxis is a complex activity by which individuals create culture and

 

society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a

 

cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to libratory education.

 

Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion),

 

intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to

 

homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance).

[Ophiolite]

Ah, now I have it: in other words you are being selfish. I'm surprised I didn't spot it before.

[metatron]

Ah, now I have it: in other words you are being selfish. I'm surprised I didn't spot it before.

OK, I'll bite how am I being selfish?

[metatron]

Life is physical first' date=' as this is how we perceive it. It would be metaphysical second, if such an illusionary state existed. [/b']

 

 

 

I'm not sure if you are trying to explain your religious view, but showing bigotry surrounding the nature of Lawyers does a lot to undermine your pseudo-religious statements. An enlightend soul would not harbor or express such views.

 

 

Are you saying the quantum world emerges from the matter ?

[Ophiolite]

OK, I'll bite how am I being selfish?

I didn't aim for you to bite: it was a genuine observation. I base it on an interpretation of these two statements:

"My purpose is to garner feed back to gain perspective and inspire thought in myself, and others."

"I am attempting to gather information though investigation, by utilizing a 'praxis'."

 

So you wish to inspire thought in yourself, and,very cleary as an afterthought, in others also. It really comes across as quite secondary to your primary goal of 'inspiring though in yourself'. The second quote, and your explanation of a 'praxis' confirms this.

[by the way, that explanation, appears very much like a quote. I recall seeing similar in other posts by yourself. Am I correct? Yet you do not provide sources: perhaps that is not selfish, but it is rude.]

Now, this is all well and good, but you did not indicate this was your intent in any of your thread openers. You allowed other posters to form a false impression of your purpose and to engage in discussion on that basis. I had assumed this to be deliberate, hence my characterisation as selfish. If it was indeed unintentional I apologise and reclassify it as thoughtless.

 

Metatron I have made a sincere effort to engage with your posts on several occasions. Invariably you avoid direct answers to questions and spin off in an uncontrollable fashion and unpredictable direction. This is frustrating for some.

I do not suffer fools gladly. You are not a fool, but on occasion you do a remarkably fine impression.

Could I suggest that on future threads you begin you lay out your objectives with more clarity. It may improve the quality of the responses.

Ophiolite

[metatron]

I didn't aim for you to bite: it was a genuine observation. I base it on an interpretation of these two statements:

"My purpose is to garner feed back to gain perspective and inspire thought in myself' date=' and others."

"I am attempting to gather information though investigation, by utilizing a '[u']praxis'[/u]."

 

So you wish to inspire thought in yourself, and,very cleary as an afterthought, in others also. It really comes across as quite secondary to your primary goal of 'inspiring though in yourself'. The second quote, and your explanation of a 'praxis' confirms this.

[by the way, that explanation, appears very much like a quote. I recall seeing similar in other posts by yourself. Am I correct? Yet you do not provide sources: perhaps that is not selfish, but it is rude.]

Now, this is all well and good, but you did not indicate this was your intent in any of your thread openers. You allowed other posters to form a false impression of your purpose and to engage in discussion on that basis. I had assumed this to be deliberate, hence my characterisation as selfish. If it was indeed unintentional I apologise and reclassify it as thoughtless.

 

Metatron I have made a sincere effort to engage with your posts on several occasions. Invariably you avoid direct answers to questions and spin off in an uncontrollable fashion and unpredictable direction. This is frustrating for some.

I do not suffer fools gladly. You are not a fool, but on occasion you do a remarkably fine impression.

Could I suggest that on future threads you begin you lay out your objectives with more clarity. It may improve the quality of the responses.

Ophiolite

 

**Originally posted 4-14-05***

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9881

 

What I am presently attempting, is to garner specific feedback in order to form the text into a translatable whole. your feed back has been helpful especially {"You're used to things forming around the central attractor, so you write descriptions that form around your main ideas, without enough emphasis on the main ideas themselves (beating around the bush)."} I will try to find a way to not beat around the bush as much but this is necessary to a degree.

I picked up this habit from one of my mentors. This beating around the bush is a way that allows a discovery to be rediscovered by others. The information can only be gained in the context of a praxis. In solving the convoluted situation or information. One has to change the way he or she sees the world. Only then can we change our view in the face of new information. The riddle is solved, the landscape changes because our internal system has been altered. These praxis are necessary if one is presenting information that is counter to past assumptions.

 

If I where to just present the information without some “beating around the bush “ I would cheat nature and you by forcing a narrow view point. I am not saying I am being cryptic porpously, it is just a habit that allows me too expand on information before condensing it. The information is correct, and there is internal context within the text but it is not necessarily in any particular format.

 

This is the very early stage in the condensing of the material and anyone that wants to help can, and in doing so I hope it will also open view points that I could have not considered on my own. If I narrow this information to early I will not allow these possibilities to occur. This system will form its own watershed of connecting points to the world Just as it did in the beginning.

 

Thank you for the well thought-out post.

 

 

 

Praxis is a complex activity by which individuals create culture and society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to liberatory education. Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion), intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance).

--------------------------------

This is the source;

Dictionary of Critical Sociology

 

Would you care to apologize for you obvious mistake.

[Ophiolite]

If I've made a mistake I'll gladly apologise, retract, or correct as appropriate, but I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[metatron]

Have You ever considered running for a political office?

 

 

*****Originally posted 4-14-05*****

 

 

This date comes before.... today's date.

[Ophiolite]

I take that to mean you think I'm trying to wriggle off of some hypothetical hook. What mistake have I made?

[metatron]

I take that to mean you think I'm trying to wriggle off of some hypothetical hook. What mistake have I made?

 

 

Like a snake. Now if you want to talk about the subject at hand fine, if not, go away.

[Ophiolite]

Metatron,

in post #62 your final comment, in bold letters, was "Would you care to apologize for you obvious mistake."

I do not know what mistake you are talking about. I said as much in my response, post #63. I cannot apologise for something which you have apparently identified as a mistake, but which I am unable to fathom.

Rather than tell me what my mistake is, in post #64 you make a trite comment, but choose to keep silent on my mistake.

I ask again, in post #65, "What mistake have I made?"

Again, you refuse to answer.

You requested an apology for my "obvious mistake". I am trying to give it, if you will identify that mistake. I am prepared to talk about the topic further, but really cannot do so until you have had the courtesy to refer me to 'my mistake'.

I noted just a few posts ago that "Invariably you avoid direct answers to questions and spin off in an uncontrollable fashion and unpredictable direction. " You are doing exactly that now.

So, please, what is the mistake I am requested to apologise for.

 

To all other readers, help me out here. Perhaps I am just being thick, but what does Metatron want an apology for?

[atinymonkey]

I think the apology has something to do with paraxis. I'm not sure what, and my head hurts from looking.

 

Metatron has taken his definition of Paraxis from here: -

 

http://www.trentu.ca/nativestudies/courses/nast305/keyterms.htm

 

Not from the distinguised sounding 'Dictionary of Critical Sociology' which defines paraxis as: -

 

Praxis/Practice: A complex activity by which individuals, in collectivities, create culture, society, and create themselves as "species beings", i.e., as human beings. The moments of praxis include self-determination (in contrast to coercion), intentionality (in contrast to reaction), sociality (in contrast to privatism), creativity (in contrast to sameness) and rationality (in contrast to blind chance) (after M. Markovic).

 

I have been able to gleem from Google that it has several different interpritations, however the only dictionary I have to hand was written in 1969 and doesn't have Paraxis in it so I'm unable to clarify the actual meaning.

[metatron]

I think the apology has something to do with paraxis. I'm not sure what' date=' and my head hurts from looking.

 

Metatron has taken his definition of Paraxis from here: -

 

http://www.trentu.ca/nativestudies/courses/nast305/keyterms.htm

 

Not from the distinguised sounding 'Dictionary of Critical Sociology' which defines paraxis as: -

 

[i']Praxis/Practice: A complex activity by which individuals, in collectivities, create culture, society, and create themselves as "species beings", i.e., as human beings. The moments of praxis include self-determination (in contrast to coercion), intentionality (in contrast to reaction), sociality (in contrast to privatism), creativity (in contrast to sameness) and rationality (in contrast to blind chance) (after M. Markovic). [/i]

 

I have been able to gleem from Google that it has several different interpritations, however the only dictionary I have to hand was written in 1969 and doesn't have Paraxis in it so I'm unable to clarify the actual meaning.

 

 

You Know you should be more interested in the content of what a praxis is, rather where it came from. To be honest I’ve forgotten where this particular definition originated.

 

The point is I was being accused of not saying early that I was conducting a praxis. That I had not said this in early threads, which I did on 4-14-05.

[reverse]

No' date=' This is not my purpose, My purpose is to garner feed back to gain perspective and inspire thought in myself, and others.

 

Like I’ve said before, we are working from two different veiw points, or conceptual models, you are working at gaining a social consensus, while I am attempting to gathering information though investigation, by the utilizing a "[u']praxes[/u]".

.[/i]

 

 

Hey, no way...that's the way I like to work.

 

trouble is, most other people don’t.

usually it's more like...oh yea I have the answer and I’m going to show you were you are wrong and why.

 

It's so nice to have a name for it...Praxes.....cool.

 

 

I thought that it was the normal way people figured things out....

 

this conflict is a real revelation to me.

[reverse]

Did some research.

 

Beating around the bush is a Wild Boar hunting term.

 

Peasants beat around the bushes to flush out wild boar for the nobles to hunt.

 

It was best not to face a Boar in the thick…it is at the advantage there… and has razor like tusks.

 

The good thing about beating around the bush is that as well as getting the Boar into the open where it is easily seen…you also flush out other sorts of useful game…like rabbits and quail.

 

So…I guess it depends on how you work.

[Ophiolite]

No apology due. I recommended you set out your position at the start of a thread, not at post 38 or 39.

To repeat a point made before: if you produce rambling, discursive posts, readers will lose the will to live, sorry, will find it difficult to stay with your argument. Everyone loses.

Finally, do you not understand that many/most people approach discussion this way (i.e. praxis, praxes, whatever) in a verbal setting, but most of us are curteous enough to take a more structured, user friendly approach in writing and on forums.

All you have succeded in doing is alienating potential supporters and diverting the discussion away from the central issue towards this peripheral tripe.

[reverse]

This is really fascinating to me...

can we please divert from love waves for a sec to get this sorted....

 

The reason I like to circle around a topic like a wolf around prey is to make sure I know what I’m about to go after..

and that I pick the best point of attack...

 

Do you fear that the direct approach and quickly eliminating unlikely issues will lead to an incomplete or superficial understanding?

[metatron]

This is really fascinating to me...

can we please divert from love waves for a sec to get this sorted....

 

The reason I like to circle around a topic like a wolf around prey is to make sure I know what I’m about to go after..

and that I pick the best point of attack...

 

Do you fear that the direct approach and quickly eliminating unlikely issues will lead to an incomplete or superficial understanding?

 

 

You got it, This discovery I believe represents a watershed in understanding of how systems self-organize in nature. My intent in using a praxes is to allow for a stage were as many points of views and ideas come to bear on this model.

[reverse]

same here.

 

I can't see what other use an international science forum has.

 

(I can get information on any given topic much faster by more direct means).

 

perhaps most people do not see the true potential of such a fortunate time and place.