Firstly sorry for the delayed reply Immed my provider had punished me for using too much data stream.
I haven't read all the rest of the new posts this thread so if I am repeating anything already broached just point me at the suitable #reply.
Which leads me to the meat, the heart,
the hard core of your intent, which I in turn am going to subtitle "woo as a useful life tool" and of course a second subtitle "taking the pith".
I would say "it's important to understand woo from the inside, so that you can learn how not to project it onto the material world too much.' - the same is true for OMM, important to understand it empirically, and important to keep it on the outside and not project it in'.
Do you not think this is a very large reversal of previous looonnng threads where you fought very strongly for woo to be adopted by science, for woo to become the next best (directive/informative) thing for science?
Now you've become an advocate of woo lite, as a tool to enable us to not let too much woo in.
I know you are clever enough to see what a radically different pitch you are now making.
Have your ideas changed in the past few threads?
If so why do you think you've changed so significantly?
As I and others have repeatedly asked you in other threads Immed, have you even one practical suggestion of how to use woo in one's life, let alone in science?
I honestly have no recollection of anyone asking me for anything which I did not deliver rapidly upon the next response. Except Omen, who decided that demanding I produce definitions for dozens of common words. Sorry, I don't do definitions spats.
The repeated requests were asking you (from memory, as I cannot be buggered going back and finding them) for some practical method that you might suggest that woo could be used by science. (the fact science is so separate from woo was what you were decrying)
You may have no recollection of failing to put forth a suitable method, but I do recall that you never did describe a process of that sort. Why do I recall this? because I waited eagerly for your replies, and was to date disappointed.
To answer your question, first of all imposes OMM right away.
Of course it does mate.
So now asking questions imposes science? Yes Yes Yes Is this a negative thing? No, it is how we communicate.
Woo of course would demand that you read my mind, or some cards, or the like, and our resultant conversation??? should not touch upon realities via logical communication, but be continued by our palpable good will to one another our suspension of disbelief and our willingness to GUESS what the other meant/wanted/expected/thought.
The OMM takes for granted that life exists for strictly practical reasons,
Why? Where is this written in stone? What possible practical application could life have in an rationalist world? I am not talking about life being a tool for furthering genes, I am talking about the more basic question. What use is life at all? A vehicle for transporting water was the best explanation I ever heard.
Now of course woo can answer that question by energetic use of GUESS, unfortunately the woo answers are never the same twice nor mean the same to any two people.
which, particularly for the hard problem of consciousness, is far from established. Practical suggestion of what? What do you want? 'Excercise more. Avoid refined carbs.'
Now this is unfortunate. It was not I, who came to this forum demanding woo be adopted by science, so it is very sad to see you dodging this. You came saying you wanted respect for woo from the scientific world, but when asked yet again how this might occur, not only do you fail to suggest any serviceable method, but you attempt to disguise the request for your practical suggestions as pointless or foolish.
I have to say, I am wondering if you are capable of admitting error when you have erred?
This is not an attack, but an observation made after watching you shift your position quite subtlety but quite often when your respondents have made your position awkward ...........again I cannot be bothered thread mining, and will hope you are capable of acknowledging this(ACME) without me having to drag out evidences(OMM).
It's not about 'using woo in one's life', it's just about adding a layer of intuitive awareness so that you make fewer mistakes and cause fewer problems.
Again something of a position shift Immed, limiting woo's usefulness and method, without actually even beginning to explain how we might use it (practically),
...it is somewhat awkward to come to grips with shifting positions.
Regarding intuition, I believe there is at least one school of thought that feel intelligence is a product of grouped micro intuitions, and this can be indicated by the intuitive processes of normal everyday existence walking talking etc.
Elsewhere googling showed that science and science educators are aware of the value of intuition, but seem unable/unwilling to pursue any practicable method of training in the use of intuition. At least for the generation following the conference.
I'm sorry this is only a short preview of the paper
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=u2405131t3172647&size=largest
How do you see intuition being encompassed and used by science so as to achieve fewer mistakes and fewer problems?
How do you see intuitive awareness being taught successfully?
If you really cannot give a specific method Immed, will you acknowledge that it is just a wish, like one might wish for a generic cancer cure?
I am not knocking the sentiment, I am just indicating to you that your wishful thinking is great as a cause celebre, but is to date a bit light on the ground regarding practicable application.
It's about patience, and honesty, and not having to turn time into money every second of your life --- because it's ruining civilization.
So more beautiful dreams that don't seem to show any real world method.
Of course one hesitates to rail against the unjust implied accusation that scientists are impatient and dishonest, and are incapable of not seeking money and ownership, nor that any might be working to save civilization.
Truthfully this sentence of yours is noise that doesn't remotely answer the question either.
Have you considered that your verbosity is a tool that is capable of winning arguments by default where the sheer noise hides the flaws, and where the sheer amount wearies the respondents? Again I ask sincerely .....it is not an attack, I have witnessed the process before.
The death of a thousand cuts is extremely hard to describe in any meaningful way, as each individual cut is barely noteworthy, but the sheer number overwhelms.
Have you one instance to show that your impassioned wishful thinking, and emotional investment can be justified with just one practical use for woo of any sort (aside from panacea).
Practical Use is all OMM. Human consciousness has no practical use for the universe. Woo awareness, properly integrated in healthy proportion, provides layers of meaning which cross reference between time, yourself, friends. The other day I had a friend of mine I hadn't seen in 20 years call me to read her teenage son's chart (who I never met) and so I did and I modeled the conflicts she and he have for her in astrological and plain English. She asked me for advice on how to deal with their fights and I told her about the difference between people with charts like hers and charts like his. A couple weeks later she thanked me effusively for that reading and said that her and her son were really back on the same page again.
So let's see, an hour free friendly telephone call and a free chart from a free program vs perscription drugs, surveillance, dysfunctional family environment, negative life altering consequences for mom and teen alike. Yeah, that Woo stuff is awful.
How excellent that you are so skilled at your woo. And what a shame that you seem so unable to explain how to pass those skills on.
So is this the woo that you described above as
It's not about 'using woo in one's life', it's just about adding a layer of intuitive awareness so that you make fewer mistakes and cause fewer problems.
?
The story is a bit trite though, and of course unsubstantiated, but that cannot be helped.
What would be impressive is if you could explain just once how woo can be taught. How is the skill passed on, how is intuitive awareness measured? By what feels right at the time? Or is there a manual.
I am very uninterested in pursuing any defence of the legitimacy of rational thought and science as tools, you are more than aware of these, and I will take it as given that you are not denying that legitimacy and worth/value.
What I will state is that woo = GUESS.
Gnostic's universal evidential search solution.
It's not the gnostic who searches for solutions in evidence...it's OMM.
Come on mate aren't we all seekers of knowledge, or are woo practitioners finally acknowledging there is no real knowledge to woo?
I know that it seems to you that I'm dodging something, but to me, every time you ask that it just fulfills my description of OMM. If you are locked in a closet of materialism, all I can do is play you music or talk to you through the door. You are the only one that can open the door and take a look at the rest of the psyche - the part that doesn't just to make money, spread the genome, or disprove that there's anything outside the closet.
Of course the sad thing about the internets is the isolation. You don't know me past my words, you cannot have the faintest idea of what I may have lived to get me to here and now.
I am quite the schizo when it comes to intuition, running in parallel to rationalist examination.
I don't deny the capability of the mind to process more and faster than linear thought, I just deny the right of those who GUESS to demand their ir-repeatable findings be treated with anything other than healthy scepticism until their woo is shown not to be woo.
I find your generic defence (ie until you believe there is no point in me trying to convince you)banal and presumptuous, and ............generic.
It really is a runaway line disguised as a throwaway comment.
What is really to point, is that the emperors robes aren't always convincing, and the warp and weft are imaginary.
Woo is the epitome of GUESS
Matryoshka dulls receding in beautifully fractaled ignorances and silly superstitions.
like a priceless heirloom? Yeah, gotta get rid of that...there's leaking oil rigs to build, populations to grow.
You are starting to sound sulky mate.
So are you suggesting that woo did better when science did not exist?
There is no denying we have the potential to make greater messes than ever, but I am yet to see how you have shown that intuitive awareness is not present in all humans to a degree, and that it doesn't play a part in ongoing works in all and any field of human endeavour.
And if woo was so efficacious at guiding us to better decisions, how the hell did we end up with science? And where did woo go?
I think you are mixing up a disdain for rampant capitalism and a need for more woo.
As much as I like your flights of fancy Immed, I am bored with your reluctance to acknowledge that woo and science I am bored with your reluctance to acknowledge that woo and science do not mix, cannot mix, and never will mix.
do I'm pretty sure that they are two opposite sides of the same thing. We are the mix.
OK here I am very close to agreeing, as woo is no more than a human construct the same as science, both are tools that measure us in our universes.
This has been pointed out by myself and by better thinkers than I here many times to you, but you dodge, twist and make partial adjustments to supposed meanings, partial allowances to opposition's accuracies.
For example? If I'm dodging anything I'm not aware of it. I'm just putting this information out here and really have no vested interest in being 'right' about it. Unless someone is going to make a point I haven't heard 1000 times before - then I'm very interested. Otherwise, don't bother trying to make close my eyes and go OMM, I've been there and know it inside out. Nothing anyone has said here has given me anything but validation of the model I describe.
Good on ya. Assert Assert Assert, but you still haven't translated your stated desire into a considered process of how to achieve your stated desire.
Here's the conversation I keep having to have with people, so you can't tell me about dodges and twists.
"Color does not physically exist, yet it is a subjective truth"
"No, Color is wavelengths"
(proves it isn't)...what is color?
"signals in the brain"
(proves it isn't)...what is color?
"it's just an interpretation"
"what is an interpretation? What is it made of?"
...
Patterns, forms, icons, gestalts, images...what are these things that our consciousness literally consists of and why does the OMM deny their relevance if not existence?
You don't find them in the brain. There is no miniature studio with actual color holograms of the sights and stereo audio of the sound of our life. There's nothing but neurons in the brain. We know where conscious comes from, but we don't know where it physically is enacted. Where all of those neurochemical processes unfold into, what the OMM believes is 'all of the order and beauty that has ever been in the Cosmos'.
It's ridiculous.
What makes sense to me is that color is a purely interior subjective experience which can be encoded as an analog to transmit through wavelengths of light, then stepped through another layer of encoding/switching as a biochemical-optical text, then a neuro-electric signal, then as a brain text of complex neural orchestration (none of these look like color from the outside, mind you'), then finally as a reconstituted, decoded subjective experience of color in consciousness, 'white' for example.
The implication of this is that color is being experienced 'subjectively' in other places besides in side us. It could very well be that plants are green, but just not physically green. The light frequencies they kick back remind our brain of what consciousness was when it was light itself, when green was invented. Really not much different than holding invertebrate DNA copies in every cell. The spectrum is a living memory, evidence of order in the cosmos. The fact that whiteness holds the entire spectrum within it invisible points to the nature of memory and information access in the essential world. Solid state, timeless, ordered, meaningful to us.
By extension, all of our senses feed us information from the cosmos. Order. Like color, it is transduced and decoded through physical media, but the physical media is the exception - it's the gaps from the BB. Fragments of matter and energy now have to touch each other through encoded physical processes, a few of which we can consciously detect through our optical, aural, olfactory, tactile, gustatory, vestibular probes - which are just specialized nerve endings. The content is all the same going to the brain, and it's the brain that has to recognize patterns and generate patterns which we can recognize. The brain is quite familiar with the pattern it receives from the cosmos and generates to us, so much so that when a new variation shows up, special attention is paid to it.
Nice visuals there is no doubt in my mind that any human antenna is subjective, it's just not easy to see how the above vision gets us to improved intuitive awareness.
If woo of any sort was capable of being used by science, read by science, embraced by science, in any way, then it would not be woo.
If woo was even capable of being taught in any meaningful way, it would just not be woo.
That's like saying, Quantum Mechanics were able to be used as music, added as spice, embraced by zoologists in any way, then it would not be Quantum Mechanics.
You've misunderstood me mate I meant, that if any of your woo could be demonstrated repeated verified and or taught, then it would be science. it remains as woo, not because it has no potential relevance, but because it, to date, can not be read/studied in any repeatable reliable way.
I have watched with interest your other posts around the site Immed, you have certainly generated some interesting thoughts/perspectives.
Why would they be interesting if there's no truth to them? 
Do you like reading Woo?
No I enjoy interesting peoples thought processes. Of course my subjective antenna chooses whom it finds interesting.
I am interested if you can actually deconstruct the internal mechanism that causes you to be the obsessive one trick pony when it comes to this particular subject.
Not a cause, but yes, there is a particular astrological correlation that gives me a specific map of this moment in my life. Not that I'd choose it. I'd stop if I could, this is brutal on my nervous system. Besides, I've got nothing else to do. Makes it easy.
if you feel that fated bloke, blame it on the big bang, not these passing momentary astrological whimsys.
