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 Kaycee,   
      
   surprised to learn "my tone was very patronizing" for "I [neither] have   
   the right/correct answers to these questions" nor have I claimed such   
   "true" omniscience. On the contrary, I even shared with you (e.g. the   
   "Axiom" part you snipped) and Laura the skeptical conjecture that,   
   perhaps, no one ever had, has, or will ever have them, empirical   
   science included. And seeing you last time truly believing otherwise I   
   decided to provide you with a different point of view, an alternative   
   "objective truth" if you like :)   
      
               "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth   
               and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."   
   						      Albert Einstein   
      
   And so did "the laughing gods"... laughed 'their' guts out at the   
   suggestion that "a living rat was very close to a living human". It had   
   rather more to do with your choice and ordering of the words, for   
   otherwise it's not that I haven't heard of the funny claim before, that   
   "the two animals closest to humans were pig and rat"... {Or so said the   
   'pharmaceutical' industry, I mean, some drug developers would probably   
   love to have us convinced in our alleged "closeness" to their guinea   
   "pigs".}.., but hey, do we have to believe everything "we're told". It   
   surely is our basic human liberty to do so, but is also a choice, a   
   conscious one, and who knows, maybe even a self-fulfilling one :).   
      
   Yet, as you might have guessed, the real 'killing'/trigger of the   
   "chain reaction" was the astonishing ability to read (or rather,   
   imagine) "rats dreams, just about mazes and stuff", I mean, how on   
   earth would you know, and how do you expect me to react to such   
   'information'. And what if rats were instead dreaming about humans   
   chasing them with the gun, spray or 'knife' (the vivisecting scalpel,   
   that is:), it shouldn't be excluded either.. at least not "without   
   proof". Moreover, I too can remember having as a child such "dreams   
   about mazes and stuff" myself, must have been a recollection of my   
   distant evolutionary past, I suppose.. :) Come on.. "wake up",   
   "Trinity, get up. Just get up." :)   
      
        MORPHEUS: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who   
   	       accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake   
   	       up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth.   
      
   As regards to your cherished "belief [that] the scientific method is   
   the best tool mankind has invented so far", you somehow tend to   
   overlook/forget the tragic consequences (intended or unintended?,   
   frankly, I couldn't care less, we're talking cold facts now:)... of   
   say, military science, with its myriad of "advanced" researchers   
   'still' (or rather, more than ever:) working on/developing all kinds of   
   "enhanced" guns and killing machines, i.e. empirical scientists at   
   their best, selling death by the bucket with conventional and   
   unconventional weapons of mass destruction:   
   atomic-nuclear-electromagnetic-radio-bio-logical-chemical-...: the   
   dirty/radiological, fission, fusion, cobalt bombs; the advanced   
   thermonuclear/enhanced radiation or so called neutron bombs... and all   
   the other "best tools mankind has invented so far".   
      
   Ever had that feeling.. that this (the pros and cons of "organized"   
   science:) can be a huge subject, for I have.. tried to cover as much of   
   it as I could in previous a.d.c. threads. 'Unfortunately' :), I   
   wouldn't like to bore the tolerant a.d.c. denizens any longer (they've   
   been quite patient with me, you know), but if, as you say, you still   
   haven't "given up the search for objective information" :) then you are   
   welcome to "also see" older treatises of mine devoted to this topic,   
   and to "practical alternatives" to "organized matter". For some   
   references see the attachment below, at the very end.   
      
   Best,   
   Ann   
      
      
   P.S. First, your reply follows, 'in full', i.e. this time I've chosen   
   to insert back the small "amount of text you cut out... for clarity's   
   sake", I guess :), and it was too short anyway.   
      
   Today Ann commented:   
   > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Kaycee wrote:   
   >> Ann wrote:   
   >>> Kaycee wrote:   
   >>>> Ann wrote:   
      
   >> thanks for your patience and unwavering attention: I might be a fast   
   >> typist but you surely are a fast reader :). Plus came up exactly   
   >> with the reply I was hoping for (the "axiom of choice" I mean), if   
   >> that's not a coincidence, then what is.   
      
   >>> For clarity's sake, I cut out the huge amount of text.   
      
   >> It's fine with me, it was too long anyway.   
      
   >>>> "expectations", or have you indeed undergone brain dissection. {Do   
   >>>> not get me wrong here, I certainly "appreciate" Kaycee's   
   >>>> vivisecting experience :), but a "living rat" ain't the same as a   
   >>>> living human.}   
      
   >>> No, but it is very close. Rats do dream as well, much like us it   
   >>> appears, just about mazes and stuff .) I'm told the two animals   
   >>> closest to humans are pig and rat, when it comes to physiology.   
      
   >> :) :) with all due respect, but I still cannot hold my breath/gales   
   >> of laughter here. I mean, even after reading it over and over again   
   >> the 'code' still produces the identical 'chain reaction', you must be   
   >> a programmer or something :).   
      
   > I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean my sentences are a code that   
   > produces the chain reaction of you laughing? I didn't actually mean   
   > to program a joke .)   
      
   :) Yet you did, perhaps unconsciously/unintentionally so. At any rate,   
   you see how easy it was for you to "understand [exactly what] I meant".   
   Of course, now I realize (much to my regret:) the gales of laugher were   
   inappropriate or a bit premature, so pardon me for taking it as a jest,   
   but so it looked to me then, my subjective senses 'saw' it that way   
   ("Perceiving reality is all about choices", remember:). I even once   
   jokingly formulated it as the seventh universal law of thermodynamic   
   human nature: we 'see' what we would like to see, and vice versa, we   
   overlook what we wouldn't like to see.   
      
   >>> Btw technically it wasn't a vivisection (very unethical, those   
   >>> things), the rat was dead, but the brain was removed and   
   >>> artificially kept alive for a limited amount of time.   
      
   >>> Just as a general reply to you Ann:   
   >>> Perceiving reality is all about choices.   
      
   >> Right, I liked that :), although I guess it comes as no surprise...   
   >> that "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."   
      
   >>> You may choose not to believe any information others are giving   
   >>> you, and you may choose not to believe any information your senses   
   >>> are giving you. You may also choose to believe there is no   
   >>> objective truth out there, or you could even lapse into solipsism   
   >>> and believe that everything and everybody is just your subjective   
   >>> illusion. However,   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)