XPost: alt.dreams, alt.dreams.castaneda, alt.dreams.edgar-cayce   
   XPost: alt.dreams.lucid.entities, alt.out-of-body, japan.dreams.lucid   
   From: aon2@hotmail.com   
      
   Hi Laura,   
      
   :) I see now, at last, where the rabbit hides: you'd like us to "provide   
   you with objective truth", right, not mine/the "subjective" but the   
   truly objective one. So now we're finally talking :), we've just   
   scratched the Truth's surface and will soon begin to "realize the   
   bandwidth limitations of the rational [scientific] mind". For we've   
   finally (inevitably, I would say:) reached the "objective" core of the   
   scientific method, the fundamental axiom dreamed by the Godfather of   
   Sciences -- the one and only "objective truth"/independent reality   
   without (outside, out of our minds:) verifiable by the impeccable eyes   
   of the independent Aristotelian observer. And as any axiom (root   
   word/pillar supporting a given matrix of words) it is unprovable...   
   ("illusion":), a pure matter of faith, and like in any religion we   
   again have a choice to either believe/swear by it or not depending   
   on... our personal preferences for the words, go figure :). Or as your   
   'favourite' said:   
      
   	"Eternal truth needs a human language that alters with the   
   	spirit of the times."   
   						  Karl Gustav Jung   
      
   > That is, Laura wrote:   
      
   > That's fine, but it will never provide you with objective truth about   
   > anything. What it will provide is a lot of subjective truth that   
   > applies to your own view of yourself. Note that truths about your own   
   > view of yourself are not necessarily the same thing as truths about   
   > yourself.   
      
   Of course, you wouldn't expect me to cry over my method's inability to   
   "ever provide me with objective truth about anything", would you. I   
   simply happen to know that truths are subjective or "generally   
   relative" (Einstein might have had a point:), it's called incredulity,   
   disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge, however worthy of   
   confidence they might appear... at first :).  Like a true skeptic (as   
   opposed to Dogmatism and its cunning embodiments Stoicism,   
   Aristotelianism, Scholasticism, Scientific-ism:) I'm universally   
   doubtful of the existence of the absolute "objective truth" - a Logos   
   "illusion" to me. For more on this classical skeptic (or agnostic) view   
   you can consult my "Interesting Article... on Skepticism" at a.d.c.   
   from September 4.   
      
   Having said that, I'm grateful to you for being honest about your goal,   
   the purpose without which "we would not exist, purpose that created us,   
   purpose that connects us, that pulls us, that guides us, that drives   
   us, purpose that defines, that binds us" (Agent Smith from "Matrix   
   Reloaded"). Thus, we could identify the first 'problem word' (or one in   
   need of a closer examination:), the "truth", the divine one, I guess,   
   if possible. Yet, my feeling is that the real bone of contention will   
   be the other word, "objective": do you think it is real, objectively so   
   (independently of our mind:), you know its 'objective' definition? Come   
   on, give it to me, your 'objective' version of 'objective'.   
      
   Though, please, be careful to only "provide me with objective truth   
   about" its Logos/meaning, I wouldn't like to hear any "subjective   
   truths that apply to your own view of yourself" only, because...   
   (such "truths... are not necessarily the same thing as...", go   
   figure:). A tough task, isn't it, so you may have to consult, I'm   
   afraid, some absolutely independent and immaculately objective   
   authorities on the "true" meaning, like scientific books or something.   
   The task would become even tougher the moment you realize we're talking   
   hard-core philosophy here (on the divinity/objectivity/independence of   
   Language), an issue by no means resolved by the respective authorities.   
   Experts have several competing theories (but in fact world-views), like   
   the now fashionable "semantic externalism".   
      
   {For a comprehensive overview you may check our last year's heated   
   discussion with Martin at sci.skeptic and sci.logic in the "zero gods"   
   thread, the long posts from the end (20-30th) of August. He liked that   
   theory very much and as any devoted professional (or as he said, "Now   
   I'm a semantic externalist as well - that is I do not think that   
   meaning is determined by what is in the head." but by a divine   
   something outside of the head, out of his mind, i.e. objective meanings   
   falling from the independent sky.)  was trying to defend it at all   
   costs... up until the moment he realized we couldn't agree even on the   
   definition of his/theorie's core word 'objective' (he opted for an   
   out-of-dictionary or quite secondary meaning), not to mention that the   
   alleged independence/objectivity was already assumed per default, in   
   the premises ("objective social practice") of the theory, i.e. as usual   
   (as in the mathematical 'proof' of "infinity":) the bone of contention   
   suddenly creeps in through the back door, on the sly :).   
      
   Nevertheless, my guess is that you too might like it, for it has the   
   'irresistible' scientific/certain/scholastic flavour, resting on "the   
   inherited objective social practice of the independent linguistic   
   community". I mean, isn't it reminiscent of the 'ancient' evolution of   
   Jung's Archetypes "so deeply ingrained in all of us over countless   
   generations". That is, and focusing on your interpretation of dreams,   
   millennia had to pass to form our current dreams, right, thousands of   
   years were needed in order for us to dream what we dream and do it the   
   way we do.  My problem with such deterministic view is that once we   
   accept it we would hardly change anything in our unconscious (dead,   
   log-like:) way of sleeping/dreaming, we won't even attempt or   
   contemplate such a 'nasty' change, I mean who would dare go against the   
   forefathers; be lucid, change your dreams, at free will?   
      
   Impossible, unthinkable, that's the impression from the archetypal (or   
   archaic, but in fact only a century old) theory, which is part of the   
   same "mechanism" -- "the scientific understanding" that we are a   
   machine-like "system" with hard-wired "functions", driven by   
   pre-determined/programmed "instincts" and "drives" :), or at best "an   
   electro-chemical neural network", that's what we are, seems "that's   
   good enough for you" and many others and you're definitely not alone   
   here:   
      
        "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time   
        to reform (or pause and reflect)."   
   							Mark Twain 1904.   
      
   Reverting to Jung and his/your 'objective' explanation, like any   
   'extrovert' theory it searches for outside Reasons, looks for causes   
   somewhere in independent Nature without (it were the poor forefathers,   
   this time, their "countless generations"), in fact the 'culprit' would   
   be found anything, and anywhere but within ourselves here and now.   
   That's the ultimate goal of the 'independent' observer: to distract us   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)