Solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies

JR3,

Regarding your well-intentioned attempts and question about why bite the hand that feeds you -- or other such queries,   I think what PB may be doing is, say, laying rhetorical or alternate-paradigm logical groundwork to support the (his) ~answer:  [dark matter/energy, biophotons, etc.]  In order to make that ~conclusion, when stated,  effective, it may seem best in some perspectives to maximize  confusion/uncertainty about ~self and mind-body etc.

Thus, clarifying 'self'  or presenting obvious self facts and relations is not that helpful.  -- For instance, each one of our selves does have influential parents or caregivers (in varying degrees) who taught us  how to protein-fold words in our languages and we go on to structurally code other, sometimes new and sometimes awesome  protein-foldings to convey other new influences and perspectives.  Amid this also, all exists as mystery, folded and compounded  within nested fields within nested fields, gradients of circulating energy, gradients of nested structured~duality -- structured differences reflecting and refracting, etc., from various  interactive surfaces.  One developing perspective MAY be  the dark-light oscillations.

In the story line I articulate and advocate, solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies, as I was taught/learned, in the mostly tetrahedral sp^3-hybridized molecular bonding in our so-called "organic chemistry".   Now, today, comes this mild insight that we call it sp^3 HYBRIDIZED because  of our initialization with the cubic orientation.  We start out with the cubic framework and then discover that we must HYBRIDIZE (adjust) the cubic orientations of 1s and 3p electron groupings to match with (natural, mostly tetrahedral) measured bond angles. Had our science started out with  tetrahedral structural coordination to begin with, it's likely we would have some substantially different concepts and impressions about 'hybridization' and types of chemistries and the ~significance or specialness of our "organic, resonance stabilized bondings".   This is one example where choice of framework (coordinate system) is not relativistically equal but   does actually influence STEM-related outcomes, concepts  and beliefs.

In my story line,  I happen to think that just the simple selection and repetition of cubic framework first, rather than changing to tetrahedral first is a sufficient enough of a conceptual and operational flaw to block or thwart substantial scientific development until it is corrected. A miss is as good as a mile.  I guess or imagine that Philip may have some vision of 'self' and 'consciousness' BEING dark matter/energy/chemistry transactions, so, in that storyline there would not have been the unsightly paradigm flaws, just an actual lack of development until ~now.

I'm a bit skeptical, or think that such dark chemistry would also be a foggy translation or retrofit of the existing cube first vs tetrahedron first paradigm problem we already have as outlined above.  

But, let's see....  Philip??

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

[Philip Benjamin] No, I am only taking one point at a time--- "self" first. Philip.  

JR3: I understand your sentence, "How can your self be like your body, but not your body?", I think.  If I re-write that sentence,  as the brackets indicate, I get, "How can your self be not unlike your body, but not your body? I don't understand the use of brackets in your original sentence. 

When you say, "your body", what are you referring to? What do you take your body to be? Are you referring to what your self, your ego consciousness, is aware of?

[Philip Benjamin]

Self be not unlike my body does not imply that the two are like each other. My body is not my self, nor like my self. A particle may behave like (AS IF) a wave and AS a particle. Wave behaves AS wave. A Wave is NOT LIKE a particle. A particle is not unlike a wave.  It is an AS IF logic not the Both & fallacy.

Best regards

Philip Benjamin

---

Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 03:53:10 +0000  jcs-online@yahoogroups.com; medinuclear@...
Subject: questions and concerns about Philips positionPhilip, All, or None ; (

I am not sure why you have chosen to ignore my well intentioned attempts to get a clarification of your position. Maybe you are too busy? Maybe you have no answers?

I am not sure what is going on. But, a quote from this weeks Sunday NYT magazine, by the philosopher Kwame Appiah, in the section he writes every week called "The Ethicist", comes to mind.

"As a rule -this is a matter more of etiquette than of ethics -it's discourteous to refuse to continue a conversation you have started. You can't hint at [what the Self is] and then refuse a polite inquiry about what your referring to..." 

JR3