================================================ Subject: Re: Meaning of life according to Ewa part 2 From: "Tara" To: Date: Mon 21 May 2001 00:04:59 -0400 ================================================ Sort of off topic, but you reminded me of questions I've been thinking about for years, starting with reading a book about Helen Keller as a kid. How do people who are born blind and deaf make their associations with the world? As an aspiring teacher, it astounds me as to how someone can teach someone who has neither the concept of sight nor sound to understand what they're trying to teach, and eventually to speak. Of course, it might be more understandable to me if I had more knowledge of visual and hearing impairment, but my area of concentration has been psychology. Another thing I wonder about is how newborn babies think. When Dustin was born, I could tell that he was thinking... but what was he thinking about? Having no language, how did he think? What about before he was born? If all he heard was whatever muted sounds passed through my stomach, and all he saw was dim light, what did he think about? Maybe that's why I'm so enthralled with the idea of working with children... they start out with just the very basic connections in their brains, and now, 7 months after Dustin's birth, it amazes me at how much he's learned. I think it would be impossible for an adult to learn the same volume of information in the same time period (especially once you go into the scientific aspects of the neural pathways that infants have that we lose as we grow older if they're not used). It's very interesting (in my opinion) to think about how infants start with pretty much nothing, and trying to figure out HOW they learn, considering that they don't really have anything to build on. (For example, if I were to take a course in college, I'd be building on knowledge I already have... even if it's something totally unrelated to anything I've ever studied before). Again, it's late, I'm tired, and I don't know if I'm coming across clearly or not, so I'll end this post here. Tara ----- Original Message ----- From: Creed - 7M3 - Live To: Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 11:57 PM Subject: Re: Meaning of life according to Ewa part 2 > Meaning is the association or an abstract thing. such as a word to a > real object such as a chair. Then also using other abstractions to > relate either real or imagined things together into a comparative valued > idea. But a mind is a real thing. Which can not communicate. Except with > using senses, then using areas of it that specialize with that process. > I agree that there may be more senses. Besides the 5 senses that are > known to most people. But, there are people that don't have the 5 senses > by nature. But the blind can use tools to communicate in text with the > seeing and there is no way to even know that they cannot see. Likewise, > there are deaf people that can type messages to the hearing. But it is > hard to know that they are deaf. > My question. Isn't electronic communication sort of a sixth sense? > I've talked with several non-seeing people on the Internet and it was > absolutely hard to tell any difference in thier comments to the > questions or thier perspectives. > I know that the sixth sense is considered super-natural. But "natural" > is not the same for all of us. > > Jim > > fmn wrote: > > > or I've got another "enlightened" (hehe) idea: such a thing as a > > meaning can not be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or felt primvm dvm, > > ergo one is searching for that which can not be found by means of our > > natural senses - but what about our super - natural senses (which I > > believe we do possess) and what about the mind itself? It's more > > complicated than the senses which are very primitive in comparison > > with the mind (animals also possess senses, but not a mind, at least > > not for me, don't know about you, though?) Anyway what do you say now? > > > > > have I not outwitted the fellow here?"> ;-) can't wait to read your > > reply to that! > > > > Yeah, I agree on the "evolutionary speaking"-aspect. But I don't think > > that science and transcendentalism/ spiritualism/ God/ all-controlling > > force (however you want to name it) exclude one another. It's all of > > those false interpretations that make this statement seem paradox > > (take the creation of the world according to the Bible as an example - > > so many people quarrel about it - and this quarrel is based on the > > misinterpretation of the Bible, isn't it?). > > > > gotta go, dobranoc > > > > Ewa > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Ginsberg's Theorem: > (1) You can't win. > (2) You can't break even. > (3) You can't even quit the game. > > Freeman's Commentary on Ginsberg's theorem: > Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem > meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg's > Theorem. To wit: > > (1) Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. > (2) Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. > (3) Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game. > > To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: > http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp