[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The map is not the territory. We could easily choose a different set of axioms and build a system off of that.

Perhaps.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Can I buy one from you? I could always use a spare.

Well, you'll have to figure out how to catch it, first.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Weight of the Soul

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I don't have a problem with clear communication. Words stand for real world phenomena, but do not replace them. Reason can not go beyond words. Knowledge, however, can and does go beyond the symbols we use for reality.

Correct.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

People don't know what you are talking about without the "personal, revelatory experience". They may agree or disagree, but the argument is nothing more than an exercise in semantics.

Of course. What else is an argument about definitions? That doesn't make it an invalid argument. It just makes it one most people aren't equipped to handle.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

It might win you the master-debater award on this forum, but that's about it.

Already have the award, thanks.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Considering what jsam pointed out and what you are saying here, it is all fiction. What are "you" without the genes that made you or the society that conditioned you? An object? A machine? I doubt it. Is that what you take for being real?

I would disagree with your word choice and replace "society" with "environment", but otherwise, I would answer: nothing. I am the sum of my genes' fabrication and my environment's conditioning. I exist as a logical conclusion; all that I know and believe comes from the saturation I have of my environment and the responses of the results of my genes to it.

Oh, certainly, there's more to it than something as simple as that. That's what makes biology and psychology fun. But in response to the spirit of your question, I simply am, and am nothing special.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I agree, but if you look too far into things, you're liable to be looking at the backside of your own head.

Is there something wrong with the backside of your head? Does it look like Medusa? Did Voldemort graft himself to it?

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I am fine with being a practitioner of science. I think your definition makes every human experience into the scientific method, though.

Many, yes. The scientific method, like logic, is a formalization of an everyday act. Logic formalizes common sense to make more powerful statements about things that aren't so obvious. Science formalizes the notion of repeatability and causality to accurately identify how things work.

When a computer stops working, a technician will take it apart and replace its components piece by piece until it starts working again. This is science. It is isolating the real cause, so that the problem can be identified and a solution applied. The solution is applied science.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Is it possible that you do not understand everything and other people's point of view may in fact be valid even if you don't 'get it'?

Of course. However, if I don't get it, it's the other person's job to explain it to me.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I got this relationship between the I Ching and the binary system from Leibniz, who invented the latter (along with differential calculus). He was quite excited about this discovery. I bet he said, "Ha" as well.

So why is Yin 0 and Yang 1? Is it phallic imagery?

What is the sum of Enthusiasm (000100) and Grace (101001)? If it were a binary system, it should be Fire (101101). However, these additions are nonsensical, because the hexagrams are not numbers. They are combinations of six items drawn from a set of two items.

That's like calling Kabbalah-based magic the origin of the base 10 system, because there are (usually) 10 sephirot. Nevermind that it's just as logical to realize that, hey, we have 10 fingers. And that the concept of dualism is slightly different from the concept of toggling on and off.

Leibniz formalized the binary number system. If you actually read the bit you quoted, you'll see he did not make the same error you did: he took all the credit for himself, and then said, "Oh, and my system is universal."

And there is no evidence that Leibniz practiced magic.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Yin and Yang, the pa kua, chi kung, the five elements, the merdians. These are all part of Taoist metaphysics and they were used in what could be called magic.

I've always been partial to the Chinese Element system. It's so much better than the Greek one. No nonsense like Aether.

But seriously... you're reaching. This is non-sequitur after non-sequitur. You've made your overall point already, and it is correct; technology is dreamed before it is made. Slogging through the details isn't helping your case.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Actually, I'm referencing Ouspensky.

Well, that would explain the confusion.