The things whisky does to a mind…

Or maybe the things thinking does to a mind. Some things we learn assimilate quickly and other things don’t assimilate at all. In between are those almost demonic things that assimilate a bit. They make sense but you can’t quite see where the logic lies. Something in your mind says ‘Yeah, I see it, but I’m not going to tell you what it is yet.’

Those things cannot be dismissed out of hand along with ‘the moon is made of green cheese’ or ‘fairies wear boots and you’d better believe it’ or ‘vote for us and we will actually do what our manifesto promises’. These are all obviously nonsense.

Some things get into your head and fester. Some people can just dismiss the things I have to leave in the ‘maybe’ pile and I am seriously envious of those people. They will have much tidier minds.

Mine looks like a 1950’s lawyer’s office. Somewhere among the stacks of paper is a huge wooden desk with drawers containing nobody-remembers-what.

The thing about the scientist mind is that it is supposed to be utterly detached from the experiment. That scientist must be utterly disconnected from the thing they are observing so as to not influence it in any way.

This is, if Carl Jung and many other clever people are correct, impossible.

Roobedoo left a link to a, at first glance for a pure scientist, very strange blog. It has fired neurons long dormant in that ‘worry about this later’ mode.

If everything is connected in a Unified Theory then the observer is not separate from the observed and can never be. The creation of a Unified Theory cannot happen while scientists regard themselves as outside observers because if outside observers can exist thern the total of reality cannot be unified. Those observers/scientists are part of the reality they are observing.

They – we – influence that reality and it influences us, and what we see of it. Try to ignore that part of the equation and it can never balance.

Scientists (and I am one) go to great lengths to make sure that we deal only in logic and facts and that we are not influencing any experiment we set up. Except tobacco scientists, Green God Cult scientists and the other fakes for whom setting up the conclusion first is the Right Thing to Do. Real scientists try to be entirely outside the experiment and to have no effect upon it.

But… we are part of the world we study. Can we truly be entirely separate? Can we ever claim to have had no influence at all on the experiment we devised? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

I’ll have to continue this one tomorrow. The mind still fires but the connections to the typing fingers are failing.

It’s not so much what whisky does to the mind, but what whisky does to the connection between mind and fingers.

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “The things whisky does to a mind…

  1. From The Dead Sea Scroll Deception: ” ‘My faith has nothing to fear from my scholarship’, de Vaux once stated to Edmund Wilson. No doubt it didn’t, but that was never in fact the real question.The real question was whether his scholarship, and its reliability, had anything to fear from his faith.”

    I read that quote years ago and it has always stuck in my mind- DeVaux was a Catholic Priest incharge of the Dead Sea Scrolls examination and whose findings that the scrolls had nothing to do with the bible/Jesus/early Xianity have since been rejected by just about every other credible scholar.

    Like

    • So his faith – specifically the faith of his particular sect – affected his scholarship.

      Good thing his ideas were overturned then, but in science, nothing is ever ‘true’ or ‘right’ or ‘finally decided’.In that case, his science was sound, he was working with the world-model available to him at the time. Just as science is working with the best world-model available now. Inevitably a better one will be devised in future, then another, then another. Science is never settled.

      Once it is settled and no longer open to question, it is not science. It is faith.

      Like

  2. I thought I had something, but it’s too confusing at this stage and have changed my original post. I began with something you wrote,

    “They – we – influence that reality and it influences us, and what we see of it.”

    Hence “Do unto others…” (‘karma’ to today’s Biblically illiterate) or it will come back and bite you, like Newton’s Third Law of Motion (but with interest, according to some scriptures).

    But what of the science behind it? If you do someone wrong then electrons release photons leaving you less protected from negativity and retribution? Maybe guilt is the catalyst? (Do psychopaths have fewer bad things happen to them?!)

    Then I became confused further on…

    “It is not really a stretch of the imagination to conclude that the ultimate aim of such facilities [of alien abduction] is the unholy creation of a hybrid of the human and the demonic. This would represent the irretrievable capture of the Light by Matter.”

    Creationist researcher Gary Bates likewise reckons that ‘aliens’ are demons. Their appearance in such vast numbers (last I heard was that five million Americans claim to have been abducted) fits the scriptures that Satan and his angels will be increasingly busy in these last days.

    But Grapejuice continues,

    “In the research of Yeats and others, though, this blog has shown that these “intermediate” beings are not necessarily demonic or evil in character.”

    Perhaps they are the tares, the opposite of the wheat (saved). “not necessarily demonic or evil in character” (because wheat and tares look identical until they have ripened), but not fit for salvation either (their ‘character’ disguising their inner intentions, thoughtlessness, hatred, etc.).

    Plus, of course, Lucifer can appear as a pillar of light. The photons possibly have nothing to do with the scenario.

    That blog looks like it will keep me busy on my day off tomorrow.

    Read on Macduff…

    Like

    • Is Lucifer evil?

      It’s not a flippant question. If Lucifer was created as an angel then he’s an angel, not a demon. A recalcitrant and rebellious angel but an angel nonetheless.

      In Job, the Satan (Lucifer?) doesn’t do any of the terrible things to Job. God does them all. The Satan merely poses the ‘yes, but what if?’ question. So where is the evil in that book? Could God not have said ‘Oh get lost, Job is a good man who deserves to do well and that’s the end of this discussion’?

      The Satan also tempts Jesus in the desert. An entirely futile exercise on the face of it, since his Father made all of it so it’s already all his anyway. He didn’t actually do anything though. He just talked. Where is the evil?

      Lucifer seems to be doing something between what God whats done and what Man wants done. In ‘Norman’s House’ I posit an idea. Maybe the demons didn’t invent Hell. Maybe we did. Maybe we came up with all those ideas of torment and flame and the demons (Lucifer, or maybe Azazael according to Enoch) thought ‘if that’s what they want, we can make it for them’.

      They made Hell as we designed it, because they believed we wanted it. A chilling thought, no?

      So is the evil of Hell in the builders or in the architects?

      Humans can cast out demons. We’ve been doing it throughout history. Demons are scared of us.

      Lucifer isn’t the evil one. He’s just doing what people ask him to do.

      Like

          • I’m sure that’s one of those unintended consequences – but then every day would be Towel Day and that’s my birthday, which means I’d be pretty fucking ancient … Noah would have nothing on me

            Like

              • Aye.

                Not familiar with the Doozers, but I understand they hate playing games whereas we’re kinda obsessed with them, it’s how we learn anything of any importance in life, like survival or where boundaries lie. We rely on play to communicate, even if we’re not aware that’s what we’re doing. Even if it didn’t turn out so well for him, Hamlet had it right when he said ‘the play’s the thing!’; he just shouldn’t have put all eggs in one basket.

                Like

  3. Pingback: Friday Funnies by Microdave | Max Farquar

    • It’s not really pseudoscience. Neither is alchemy. Neither is the ‘four humours’ stuff. At the time, those scientists worked with what was available to them. They didn’t have the microscopes (until Van Leeuwenhoek) or the atomic structure (until Rutherford) or antibiotics (until Fleming) or DNA (until Watson and Crick). Their science was quite properly based on the information available at that time. As is ours.

      In a thousand years, scientists WILL look back on our science and laugh at the naievety of it all. That is inevitable. We think we know it all now. We don’t know shit. Literally. We know about and have identified 400+ species of bacteria that live in shit but DNA analysis suggests we are not even halfway there. Quite literally, we don’t know shit.

      Then again, Mendel proved inherited traits while knowing nothing at all about DNA or mitotic spindles. Old wives used mouldy bread poultices long, long before Fleming found penicillin – it was the same medicine but without the bread.

      We scoff at pseudoscience now, but it is always worth deflating our arrogance with the thought that, in the future, we will be regarded as the pseudoscientists.

      Science is just the latest alchemy.

      Like

        • I ask because plums are the same genus as Blackthorn, prunus. Prickly thing thorns and spines – my boss asked me to find him a nice cactus image for his avatar. He said it was because he’s ‘a prickly git’, I asked if he was sure it wasn’t because he can be a big prick. Humour is great deflating tool, that was the point of jesters, shit doctor. Btw, you’re brilliant at making a point.

          Like

          • The plum wine remains in its last demijohn, ageing nicely. It’s been long enough now, time to get the last haze out and bottle it. There is no more sediment. The haze is likely either pectin or starch (I will get around to testing a little drop with iodine).

            Maybe I won’t bottle it. Maybe I’ll just take it along to Smoky-Drinky and collect the demijohn when I feel stable enough to carry it home…

            Humour is a great tool for self defense. Saved me from many a beating at school. The bullies laugh, not realising they have been insulted. 😉

            Like

  4. Pingback: Talking to The Doctor: Shiny Dishes | Library of Libraries

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s