"Science cannot deal with actual occasions or individual items, largely because these are heaviliy mediated by contingencies. Why?
The ability to manipulate aspects of the world in our short term favor.Why?
Myths are good for us. Why?"

Hi Stan,

Funny thing the Why in your tongue is not last letter but the second to last, does this mean something?
 nothing of point- meaning expantion of points as points are usely larger sums of points, just a remark.

The conditions of the self  I wrote aobut fond them oalso in the philosophical repertoir of skepton  meaning etc, maybe Kant went there and the others of the philosphy, but of course always in the philosophy department? of the civil origin? do not know.
The condition gives you the kind of knowledge the ability of knowing  and the lived events, still minor depictions of the conditions, it is like going form the non-dimensions to the two dimensions, and trying to represent there.
Could closed answers be answers? Why?

Why is the myth the good and what is good? in the philosophy? or in life?

Honesty boundaries of the self, the do not know part- of Socrates but furtehr than him goes Jung of the knowing? or does Aristotele, who says the thought that knows of itself is God? do not know if I wrote it correctly? do not have the passage here,
but I never wanted to revert to philosophy until I deed, cuase itis still claused as is science, in self reference? (sorry mixed closed with Clausius, deed with did, and ucase or cause with you ucase cause)

So of I go,
Careful  now do not snip the snip part, I said that there are conditions so the snip part goes the conditions you do not allow yourself to take? maybe? the do  not  answer is of  the similar like view? like  alike of the  body  and of  course of the mind, I try to talk to all of the people if I am clear, not of knowledge just of the hello how are you, even the "disabled" ones and mostly I listen ..

So countinue

This an abstract for somereason without being able then to fully understand it I coppied trhee years ago, in fact I did not understand it at all, could not even read it....remeber our first encounter was three yars ago, time passed quiqckly with many changes and deconstructions

The real Copenhagen view of Bohr, Pauli, and Heisenberg (and Bohm, BTW) is much different than this. It takes advantage of the classical/quantum dichotomy to posit our metaphysical distance from the noumenon. We are in fact seven worlds removed from the physical world of the quantum noumenon in nature. It is this type of view that opens up the field of discourse and allows us to understand the processes involved in the superficial apparency that Stapp presents as quantum theory.

"Positivism makes the mistake of refusing to see the overall connection, and of wanting to deliberately keep this in the dark. At any rate it does not encourage anyone to reflect on this matter." (Werner Heisenberg, "Der Teil und das Ganze", p. 294)

Says Armin Hermann on page 108 of his book "Werner Heisenberg, 1901-1976":

"Positivism was Heisenberg's greatest philosophical opponent."

My conclusion is that quantum theory has been taken over by its opponents, namely the positivists. What now presents itself as quantum theory is not quantum theory at all, but its opposite, as transformed by its opponents. Henry Stapp's views are unfortunately consistent with this tendency. On the other hand, the real message of quantum theory would by no means be received by the present intelligentsia, so it is understandable why Henry has been tempted to alter the message in the way that he has.

Further quotes from "Physics and Beyond" (the English version of "Der Teil und das Ganze"), by Werner Heisenberg:

Bohr, p. 205: "Some time ago there was a meeting of philosophers, most of them positivists, here in Copenhagen, during which members of the Vienna Circle played a prominent part. I was asked to address them on the interpretation of quantum theory. After my lecture, no one raised any objections or asked any embarrassing questions, but I must say this very fact proved a terrible disappointment to me. For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Probably I spoke so badly that no one knew what I was talking about."

Pauli, p. 206: "The fault need not necessarily have been yours. It is part and parcel of the positivist creed that facts must be taken for granted, sight unseen, so to speak. As far as I remember, Wittgenstein says: 'The world is everything that is the case.' 'The world is the totality of facts, not of things.' Now if you start from that premise, you are bound to welcome any theory representative of the 'case.' The positivists have gathered that quantum mechanics describes atomic phenomena correctly, and so they have no cause for complaint. What else we have had to add - complementarity, interference of probabilities, uncertainty relations, separation of subject and object, etc. - strikes them as just so many embellishments, mere relapses into prescientific thought, bits of idle chatter that do not have to be taken seriously. Perhaps this attitude is logically defensible, but, if it is, I for one can no longer tell what we mean when we say we have understood nature."

Heisenberg, p. 208: "Positivist insistence on conceptual clarity is, of course, something I fully endorse, but their prohibition of any discussion of the wider issues, simply because we lack clear-cut enough concepts in this realm, does not seem very useful to me - this same ban would prevent our understanding of quantum theory."

Bohr, p. 209: "This sort of restriction on language doesn't seem very useful to me either. You all know Schiller's poem, 'The Sentences of Confucius,' which contains these memorable lines: 'The full mind is alone the clear, and truth dwells in the deeps.' The full mind, in our case, is not only an abundance of experience but an abundance of concepts by means of which we can speak about our problems and about phenomena in general. Only by using a whole variety of concepts when discussing the strange relationship between the formal laws of quantum theory and the observed phenomena, by lighting this relationship up from all sides and bringing out its apparent contradictions, can we hope to effect that change in our thought processes which is a *sine qua non* of any true understanding of quantum theory."

Heisenberg, p. 213: "The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can anyone conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear, we would probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies."

Heisenberg, p. 216: "Unfortunately, modern positivism mistakenly shuts its eyes to the wider reality, wants to keep it deliberately in the dark. I may be exaggerating, but, at the very best, positivism does not encourage people to reflect on this subject."

There is a formal similarity between positivism, as here defined by Heisenberg, and phenomenology, insofar as phenomenology attempts to suspend all consideration of the external noumenal reality, which is essentially unknowable. However, there the similarity ends. In fact, the problem with positivism is that it suspends the higher possibilities, which phenomenology discovers. In that very real sense, they are opposites.

However, if the phenomenological reduction were taken to be a mere intellectual exercise, then there would be more than a superficial similarity, and phenomenology would be wrong for the same reason that positivism is wrong. The phenomenology I espouse says that the phenomenological reduction is a peak experience of the absolute or pure consciousness and the noumenal transcendental ego associated therewith. It is an experience of the quantum implicate order, which is the true Mind of the Observer. Since what is discovered contains all that can unfold as the explicate order, nothing is lost in the phenomenological reduction - rather, all is included and comprehended in its wholeness.? (not the purpose of science -ists the one theory?)

I maintain that the founders of quantum theory were, in essence, phenomenologists. I do not know if they in fact had an encounter with Husserl's phenomenology comparable to the one they had with positivism. It would have been most interesting. If not, the synthesis is ours to make. It is the key to the future. (maybe also of the past)


Now my own relative material? which of cource give no genarla theories but links? maybe I just try to understand, until the knolwedge becoems mere process? maybe? and the self becomes honest that means clear?

Hope your workshop ended well, from the persons in the list, It is you I can talk to only with some answers, but the view is still eliptic, both of our views.
What I wrote was of the conditions and it seems that unless one has reached a certain condition one is unable to discuss, I guess that some figures of the past match in the present time, of non-causality or of meaningful causality? hard to depict them.
from the self or autism both are linked and if one understands the self each self is unique he might be able to understand what autism is and many other things?

The causations are linear or non-linear but they are not of meaning cause linear and non-linear is a meaning in itself, and people do not understand cause do not the ability condition to do so?
Thus knowledge becomes discreet information patches of meaning cut up together in continuity and people understand that what they think is  concreet?

and why is in patches of formation? one asks all the questions in order to receive the meanings and things are connected across space and time in remnants or  seem like manifestations of specifics  forms in different  orders with small  fluctuations? or of the selfs, in the froydian manner that every movement is designed in a smaller or larger space of meaning, that kind of words I use, how I use them , certain movements are all of them our movements in regard to what is happening and regard to what others are and how they move or more or what we do and how it is done, every meaning in a meaning and then agian new meanings that never stop generation? more?.....

 
For example Fukuoka his birth his new belief of harmonius nature, and return, to non-technology arises when tech is going in such a wide spread use and the environment is being destroyed and machines overdevelop? that is one answer but one should search for the all possible ones?
The whole phrase and the message in which is use dis a meaning iteself as to how you receive it and how you live and of your future? semantics?

That in the answer itself lies the connection with its informative description of facts, thus machines overdevelop, fukuoka had indeed a belief of harmonious nature, nature is a questions meaning, harmony is also, return also, tech goes to machines also, the wide spread also a fact, the environment meaining along with the fact that it is destroyed.

Freudian slips, as for example why I write Freud like Froyd, the first order question is mispelling the latter orders, there could be other unconscious behaviors, that manifest in the mispelling.

The future has an ancinet hart- hurt- heart-  says David, but does not approach the ancient of the language in that part only partially, nor the myth cause his mind is much of the scientist? thus his attractor is science? one tires to find all possible manifestations in order? or to understand the multiple order of things as Bohm said? Bohm wanted only the science part of implicate and the explicate thus creating another law but that of the true formation?
can there be one without ourselves or the other selves in the picture?more to that or that no more and something different of other links?

The self is the one who understands and gives depictions? but this could give only what he discerns? truth hardly, it is a closed efficient scheme but gives nothing of the external the transitions, the only thing that this has given me is the watch part and empty your beliefs? maybe?

So?

Faith is fate? the etymolgoy of the word the discent

As Krishnamurti discourced do not ask me ask yourself?

The scientists are people who want to understand things under-stand why?

The question is the open system,  Prigogine does not know that he himself was an attractor, nor Krishnamurti that he became one, though he said destroy them all?
Why destroy the attract?

OTher than the self who knows?

The non-linear depictions are not answers but depictions, internet depictions, genteics information of Dna's  cybernetics? Zeitgeist ? Zeitgeist?
I gave Cantor and Godel, I could give also Heiddeger and Hegel, and Cant, Plato, and speak in the philosophical way if I go into  years only of philosophy but philosophy is only part? of the human mind and is an attractor itself?

How did Einstein create the theory of relativity?
 
Uderstand stand under bare under go change transformation transformation  transition.


The fact that I did not get any answers gave me this, this people do not go to fathom> it is until here the cause starts form one end and ends there, but in the force of classical dyanmics there is inertia adraneia and the unison of opposites, one can not ecist without its opposite counterpart when I force you you force me?
but in classical dyanmics the systems are closed...
So?

Back dynami is Greek force,( the Greeks are Ellines but are called greeks? why?) but this dynami in modern Greek (how modern) means? ifistamai ifis in ancient (which ancient?) Greek means strong istamai means exist? so exists strong? moving on..
dynamai means also... is possible 
So what is force?
What forces what ?
Why?

Dynamai could be connected to dini, dine, but do not know if it also stands can be written as dyne , dine means give, also a change,
dinw I transfer
connection to the whirlpool shape of dine  and to force in the etymology and to transfer in modern language?.
 dyan I write sometimes is dianyw =cross, dian your own name of english, might come form diana the godess but it also means a dyn why?
what is a dyn ?
other similar pronouncations of dinw  is deino but condition unfortunate event odynh pain and deinos powerful and fierce
So?
do not know

To a different connection of myth
 Dias  could be also connected with the etymology of the word? do not know?
Diana in Greek is Artemis do not know origin why artemis to Diana?, Dias is Zeus do not know which came first according to history Jupiter in latin?, Zeus means zeyw- (in greek there are two vowels of o o and w spelled the same) -
{in  the beginning wrote vauels of course wrong spelling and tried to find the correct one, the answer google gave me is values the next search was vavel  in greek of babel}

Going on Zeus means unite in the term of zeyw (common use bringing two oxes together in order to plow the earth) but was until recently used in the unite scheme of two pair zeygari zeyxi unison of two things, now being forgotten as word, only at rare times in zeygari?.
 Dias  is of the split maybe in connecton to diairw?, means making parts of, separating , separate, could  be of the pairs theme..

So?

lsot in the zuesus picture, but the force is important it is where all physics is based, it has connctions with the creations of the word and its paralles in the history and the menaing it has begotten,
So?
Do not know these are just links, or  data that could become links, though everydata is linked, so I guess it is link them, to as many possible connections with no attractors other than citations of possibilities?


Careful the Greeks(of which history )  wrote only in capitals? why?
Could not find this but found also this?

From wiki

"By then Greek was written left to right, but originally it had been written right to left (with asymmetrical characters flipped), and in-between written either way - or, most likely, in the so-called boustrophedon style, where successive lines alternate direction.

But if language is connected to perception is not it a very strange one, and does not it depict soemthing aobut perception iteslf of the first Greeks and the transitions that followed something different?
 
"Many ancient scripts, such as Safaitic, were frequently or typically written boustrophedon, but in Greek it is found most commonly on pre-historic and archaic inscriptions, becoming less and less popular throughout the Hellenic period."

Why?

And the capitals, why?

could each symbol could be a geometry of a letter, so the D = Δ or Y  Π  etc ... could mean something in the change of meanings? or transition or the words themselves and its meanings according to the letters? unlike phonetiacl languages? where meanings are devised form where?.
no evidence just that came to me now but far from a logical explanation, must be able to provide a context of what is going on in the language, a law? of transitions?.



Try boustrofydon in this text not in the left to right but in the order beginning to end middle to beginning? every order gives new correlations if it is not taken in the time series of linear cause, every breaking of the sentence, to sentence to death? to end sentence is a some sort of end, but open it up end to beginning every part gives much...

What gives the scripture and the order? to each civil about the civil inhabiants, the japanese and the hebrew and the arabs, and all the rest of the civil hindu? chinese? why other civils did not create civils? the answers are sufficient that the historians give?

The deities?

The science?

The language?

The meaning?

The history?

Perception?

How?

Why? what? when? when to the why and why to the when

Wonder why we right from left to right? and in small letters?

Language is how we move in the world and how we create? how we contact, of the perceptions the most important?

But if nothing is important  should not all be equally important?

The butterfly and the typhoon or the typhhon and the butterfly, and the car? the man? the bird?

If knowledge is tautology? what could this mean the tautology???



The riddles of the sphinx could be of the fates? the spinx is a chimaira, a creature of many shapes into one a human and not human, divine
 the question could be a personal to Oedipus whose life was chosen by the fates, in the article they were two , what devours one another?
day and night, what is man the creature that changes form and at his two leggs he at his strongest?
in both riddles time emerges as a thing that can not be understood but is clear to the one who is fated, but though it is clear for him he can not battle the fates,
time - fate torments him maybe because he did not realize the personificatiion of the unavodiable time in order to defeat it the fates, as he deos not become commune withself in order to outstand the prophesy? Why does he blind himself? is it because he could not see? or is it because he was blind at the beginning of his journey...
The sphinx he never defeated, the sphinx wsa a sgn from the fates? maybe again gave him power of the external but suffered because he did not know of the internal? and thus the hybris to the gods, and the punishment?
Promytheus still steals the fire and gives it to the humans, punishment release the heroe heracleis ? meaning,
iakros daidalos, sisyfos,pelops,  the non heroes but kings? the last  two?
heracleis Thyseas, Iasonas?

and the fates,
the double sides always prophesy of the oracles?
Fate is moira, in Greek it also went to the math department, math is after the fate? word? , but always in the radius  angles department, it involves circular like procedures...or the opposite? in the circle?, there is no beginning and no end? is the speira the opening and the closure towards the center?

What is myth?
science in myth or the opposite?
the other tribes of the ethnology?

Always we use all ways in order to understand the effects not only the science, it is because there inside you a transition twoards the natural philosophy, semantics, and history of science? that we discuss, to John also?
and the language, if all things being equal we choose all things, and not some, unlike Occam, as the questions of life is LIFE-yparxh,  and not biology. In biology we find that also in information of biology the Dna Helix, and of course we can manipulate it, man is creator, the how is the questions?
the helix was a known symbol of the past to Greeks? it is in Iapetos (nope different god but to come to my mind it shoudl have some importance? after all I am working on the Freudian slips of the unconscious? ) it is in Hermes wands, and the one in Ascleupius, founder of medicine? similar but of one serpent? why serpents?

(Iapetos was the  Titan god of mortality and the allotment of the mortal life-span. His sons Prometheus and Epimetheus were the creators of animals and men. Iapetus was one of the four brother-Titans who held Uranus fast while Cronus castrated him with the sickle. As punishment he was cast into the Tartarean pit by Zeus at the end of the Titan War, ( so is this the reason I connected with the double helix?). More?
If in mythologies the former gods still remain captive?  in the Hebrew Christioan of opposites good and evil the became demons and devils? and in the science devine contest, modern versus past, what becomes of the gods? history? becomes mythology? or there is not a hsitry at all?,
 to difficult to understand, no information science is dominant, the only thing that exist are remnants of what? statues written documents origin myth and language? which come from where? the past?
and the dinos and evolution the big bang? (funny the dynosaures came from deinos the powerful..saures)
No answers...

If the present conditions envolves the whole of the world of course we would  not  of the past but only in myth?  until the condtion is realized in order to understand  it ? also difficult to proove, no real information at all///

soemthing is not until is ? could not be the most difficult of conditions? and to be achieved the most strenuous, of all things and not of the same, of the honesty and not of the ego? to destroy each oand every attractor as to open up to the sense? do not know, but if I let them I would just follow tehm the some cases...

Thanks to all Stan and Sung and John,
united we stand,
together we fall

(the fall is the death part, which in modern times is the least of the attractors? nobody wonders about it, do not know how many do indeed wonder these days, they just fear it and try hard to avoid it, while few try to approach it thus giving meaning to life, with the extreme sports? as to the intellectual types who want to understand in the unison of things and themselves? not many left?.
 The missspelling I let it procede sometimes, as for the coherence of the text I also let it loose if I hvave the ability to do this that is, and did not resort to connencting syntax, in some parts can not be achieved cause there are not ready connectiosn meaningng that the knowlege is not yet formed in a field, and in other cases to let the meanings itself run in many different directions? maybe maybe not,
one should run in th many different interpretations and connection of meanings in order to find one stable meaning that would not chnage under the views themselves? in order not the aboriginals to be stupid primitives that just eating and procreating nor the Greeks barbarians in religions, the hindu also, for in the first time the science knows of the hisotry of science? and is able to judge its own beliefs? as in the very small it found uncertainty? in its history anarchy? in the math tautologies? in the psych collectivities and beliefs?  and that the question of life is not science but ourselves? and this is the hardest of attractors and beliefs, that few people follow? cause in that order the self must be muc wider than the other collective mass attractors?)