Steve Clarke has JUDGED you all!

[wags]

Myles was not a legal person, that was obvious, it matters not though as the legal system would determine that the poster in this case Linda was responsible for every syllable. I do agree that it was her.

[kevin]

Wags,
I had no problem with fruitbat.
I even offered him use of my barn if required here in cropredy.
Fruitbat had.has a problem with Me.
I kept pulling him up about posts that had barbed comments aimed at Myself, I would notice such when others wouldn't.
That b3egan to increase especially when I said I wanted nothing to do with the resolute whatever it is?

The sole reason for Me leaving the cosmic forum was to avoid any further conflict with fruitbat.
The myles agenda began to become clear, and as soon as fruitbat chipped in I just thought ...exit stage left now.
I have endured the constant ding dong relative to linda and several other posters for years, and always assumed that thingsa were far wackier than reported.
I still have high confidence and admiration for Linda, and have never doubted mikado, just wished the whole sorry episode had been sorted years ago, it was an honour to be associated with Pauls forum, and I will never regret a moment, but it's time now to clean some dirty washing, and scrub the decks.
Kevin

[wags]

Kevin,

I was aware of your offer of the barn and I do know that FB was appreciative about that and the dowsing lesson offer.

The conflict was due in part to the failure of the admin to sort it out early. When I sensed your unease at my arrival, I looked at it from your vantage point and that is why FB sent you an email confirming I was a real person.

On the substantive issue from my perspective which could see that you were both talking different languages and it was a matter of being tolerant of the difference in the exploration of things. Your way of describing the universe requires one to really think outside the box.

Incidentally on the 'Navigator' I saw you as the "weather vane" that indicated the health in general of the forum. I noticed that your frequency and input varied depending upon how hostile the site was. Call it intuition but your membership I felt was critical and told Linda as much, and to not ignore this.

Now that may sound odd coming from the 'rational' linear thinker, but maybe not so linear after all!

[kevin]

Wags,
"Weather vane."
I have such in My back garden, it's a sailing vessel.

I show anyone interested in dowsing the basics, as such, then give freely a pair of rods.
SOMETHING has Me tethered to TT Brown, definately not explainable by linear thinking, more a recognition.
TIME will show the wiser.
Kevin

[wags]

Wags,
"Weather vane."
I have such in My back garden, it's a sailing vessel.

I show anyone interested in dowsing the basics, as such, then give freely a pair of rods.
SOMETHING has Me tethered to TT Brown, definately not explainable by linear thinking, more a recognition.
TIME will show the wiser.
Kevin

Kevin
A ship how appropriate! lol

I used sticks from the hedgerow to find drains and cables on every farm I worked on. It was universal and we just accepted it worked and did not delve beyond that.

Maybe it is more a sixth sense rather than anything to explain.

[LuisP]

"snip"
Kevin
Call it intuition but your membership I felt was critical and told Linda as much, and to not ignore this.

Now that may sound odd coming from the 'rational' linear thinker, but maybe not so linear after all!

"snip"
I used sticks from the hedgerow to find drains and cables on every farm I worked on. It was universal and we just accepted it worked and did not delve beyond that.

Maybe it is more a sixth sense rather than anything to explain.

Well, well, well ... !


Asking, if ever willing to answer :
(1) what is "intuiton" and how do you explain it from a "underlying data " perspective you claim necessary towards other subjects to be considered as "valid" explanations ? Or should we just, then, dismiss this one from you and look elsewhere for a reason ?
(2) why do you admit the possibility of You having a "unnamed" sixth sense to justify something, but at the same time do "not delve" on trying to explain it as if it should be reasonably accepted as such, without any "evidence" to corroborate it ?

This all is very interesting - at least to me - given the fact that I also thought along similar lines until I was up against something I couldn't explain .... but have tried to understand since then.

[wags]

Well, well, well ... !


Asking, if ever willing to answer :
(1) what is "intuiton" and how do you explain it from a "underlying data " perspective you claim necessary towards other subjects to be considered as "valid" explanations ? Or should we just, then, dismiss this one from you and look elsewhere for a reason ?
(2) why do you admit the possibility of You having a "unnamed" sixth sense to justify something, but at the same time do "not delve" on trying to explain it as if it should be reasonably accepted as such, without any "evidence" to corroborate it ?

This all is very interesting - at least to me - given the fact that I also thought along similar lines until I was up against something I couldn't explain .... but have tried to understand since then.

Let me think...

Questions
1.0 What is intuition?
There is no conflict here, intuition is not always accurate and a judgement in the context you have placed it requires only that a working opinion is felt. In the absence of anything else the only fact to be derived is that I was my instant opinion without any evidence and should be treated as unreliable. If it works more often than not in a relative way (Unique to each sentient being) that may be sufficient. Belief in it being infallible or always being right is dangerous and an intuitive thought should be tested against any observations and or experiments that one can devise to break ones own theory.

2.0 The sixth sense in this case is dowsing, and there is no data except what I have heard from others and by my own experience of it just working. This is dowsing and science has not explained it, science is only one method of describing reality. I often see confusion when mixing the intuitive side and the scientific side. This incidentally is the whole derail threads issue that FB, and me at times, had.

My evidence of success at dowsing (sixth sense) is anecdotal and not reliable evidence as I am not able to say how many times I or others failed.

[LuisP]

Wags,
Thanks for a very prompt and thoughtful answer.

But it was you that specified the context and called your, so to speak, “ability” as being “universal” inside it, hereof giving ground – far as I go - for legitimate questions on why it should be “reliably” understood as Your explanation without any data to substantiate it, even if, as you now counsel, it not should be “relied upon" as evidence (wonder why not, though, since a universal result was claimed … ).

On the other hand, if “science is only one method of describing reality” as you now say - and I can only concur with ! - why have you then, on a very recent past, dismissed, fought and even derided other explanations of reality as “ridiculous” ? I mean, besides being anecdotal, can other explanations aside from what science approves, be deemed “credible” from where you stand … if, that is, not put forward by you ?

Let me be clear : I am not raising hell here, nor looking for a “conflict”.

Just thinking.

And asking myself why “it” has to touch us in so many different ways so as to be recognizable, because if not - or otherwise - we simply will dismiss it and even go to great lengths to subdue other trains of thought.

Yes,
“Belief in it being infallible or always being right is dangerous and an intuitive thought should be tested against any observations and or experiments that one can devise to break ones own theory”.

Concur.

Thing is,
No one – at least me, and not only I – claimed infallibility or having some understanding (intuiton ?) as “always right”.

The point is – precisely – not claiming such.
But of admitting instead the possibility that – sometimes – any “unique sentient being” may be right, even if against all our accumulated and proved "underlyig data".


But we all have come a long way, since all that was in conflict.

Haven’t we ?

I like to think so. And that’s all I’m saying or wanting to say.

[kevin]

Wags,
"Weather vane."
I have such in My back garden, it's a sailing vessel.

I show anyone interested in dowsing the basics, as such, then give freely a pair of rods.
SOMETHING has Me tethered to TT Brown, definately not explainable by linear thinking, more a recognition.
TIME will show the wiser.
Kevin

Kevin
A ship how appropriate! lol

I used sticks from the hedgerow to find drains and cables on every farm I worked on. It was universal and we just accepted it worked and did not delve beyond that.

Maybe it is more a sixth sense rather than anything to explain.

Our dominant senses are survival senses, and by using them constantly We have allowed further senses to almost become extinct.
Dowsing is such a sense, a hunting ability, whatever is utilised as tools are merely to assist and bring into the dominant senses arena, as such.
It goes right to the core of all of these various forums and TT Brown imho.
It's dealing with information fields, and how one such can communicate with another.....field to field.

kevin

[wags]

Wags,
Thanks for a very prompt and thoughtful answer.

But it was you that specified the context and called your, so to speak, “ability” as being “universal” inside it, hereof giving ground – far as I go - for legitimate questions on why it should be “reliably” understood as Your explanation without any data to substantiate it, even if, as you now counsel, it not should be “relied upon" as evidence (wonder why not, though, since a universal result was claimed … ).

On the other hand, if “science is only one method of describing reality” as you now say - and I can only concur with ! - why have you then, on a very recent past, dismissed, fought and even derided other explanations of reality as “ridiculous” ? I mean, besides being anecdotal, can other explanations aside from what science approves, be deemed “credible” from where you stand … if, that is, not put forward by you ?

Let me be clear : I am not raising hell here, nor looking for a “conflict”.

Just thinking.

And asking myself why “it” has to touch us in so many different ways so as to be recognizable, because if not - or otherwise - we simply will dismiss it and even go to great lengths to subdue other trains of thought.

Yes,
“Belief in it being infallible or always being right is dangerous and an intuitive thought should be tested against any observations and or experiments that one can devise to break ones own theory”.

Concur.

Thing is,
No one – at least me, and not only I – claimed infallibility or having some understanding (intuiton ?) as “always right”.

The point is – precisely – not claiming such.
But of admitting instead the possibility that – sometimes – any “unique sentient being” may be right, even if against all our accumulated and proved "underlyig data".


But we all have come a long way, since all that was in conflict.

Haven’t we ?

I like to think so. And that’s all I’m saying or wanting to say.

This is a fundamental difference between a a more scientific approach that accepts there is a marginal probability for all practical purposes if it is accepted as not possible (as far as is known to date). This is taken as normal. Nothing is ever settled or certain in science.

In relation to our 'conflicts': I contribute to the content of the argument, by providing a sceptics counterpoint. On occasions things were odd, but the environment was not being moderated properly.

I provided a counter argument it is necessary to explore whatever the subject is. Such arguments are never personal.