Ming the Mechanic:
Magic reality
The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
 Magic reality2009-10-16 03:06
11 comments
picture by Flemming Funch

It has happened many times in my life. Something impossible or at least very improbably happened. Something too coincidental and convenient to quite be a coincidence. You know, the world changes, you step off into a different dimension than where you were traveling, and suddenly the previous reality seems but a vague memory, like the dream you were having and then you wake up. If you don't somehow write it down or tell somebody about it, it evaporates very quickly.

You could say it is something neurological and psychological, and you're welcome to believe that. It doesn't really matter, as it happens on multiple levels. I've certainly noticed it as a coach or therapist as well. When the client really changes, it is something instantaneous. Suddenly their old self doesn't seem familiar to them any longer and a new way of being feels like the path of least resistance. Of course I know that I took them through certain steps, and it also works better if they have a reasonable and logical explanation for why things now are different. Doesn't matter if the explanation matches what "really happened".

It would be a pity to believe that the world is only material, consistent and boring, and the only thing that gets results is hard work and stringent logic. And that any experience of magic, miracles, synchronicity, or anything else improbable is just errant neurons that we use to fool ourselves into thinking that life is meaningful. Whereas the opposite is a lot more fun, more empowering, and quite possibly more real, dependable and tangible. What we think we know about the world is spinning in circles in our heads. But sometimes the real thing breaks through. It is most likely and lucid at times where our mental models clearly don't match what is going on any longer.

So, note to self: Pay attention to the moments of magic, where life shines through, despite the odds. Endeavor to steer by those signs of life, rather than by the obsessive need to be consistent with yesterday.


[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic]

Category:  

11 comments

16 Oct 2009 @ 15:28 by mortimer : logic
"logic is not necessarily right", you are correct. But if its not logical, then its simply not true.  

20 Oct 2009 @ 11:17 by Spock @75.69.156.209 : Logic
Logic is based on whatever our bag of truths holds. Admitting that our bag of truths may be tainted by our perspective, gets by the notion that if it's not logical, it's not true.  

20 Oct 2009 @ 11:24 by Rumsfeld @75.69.156.209 : Horatio's Reality
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."  

20 Oct 2009 @ 11:29 by mortimer : Its Logical
Andy I was not thinking of any distinction in that comment. Interesting you noticed tho cool.

Spock I'm not sure what you mean 'gets by the notion'

G'd gave you logic so you could think for yourself.  

20 Oct 2009 @ 17:15 by jmarc : Spock says
gets by the notion = nullifies.
Logic is based on facts. I guess what I (and Donald above)am trying to say is that just because we think something is true doesn't make it so. I know a fact. I base my logic on that fact that I know. If it's not logical it's not true, OR what I know as a truth is mistaken.
Notion \No"tion\, [L. notio, fr. noscere to know: cf. F. notion. See Know.]

1. Mental apprehension of whatever may be known or imagined; an idea; a conception; more properly, a general or universal conception, as distinguishable or definable by marks or notae. [1913 Webster]

What hath been generally agreed on, I content myself to assume under the notion of principles. --Sir I. Newton. [1913 Webster]

we must examine our "truths" with the understanding that they might possibly not be truths, but just notions.  

20 Oct 2009 @ 22:22 by mortimer : Blinde Faith
This deep rooted fallacy was heavily promoted by the church, "you don't question the Word of G'd". The church does the thinking for the people, you are not allowed to interpret things, you are expected to have faith. I had first hand experience with this one, several of my uncles are preachers..."you are not to ask questions like that"

Certainty In GD vs Faith In GD...
Hebrew word אמונה, correct translation is certainty, not faith. Just my opinion.

And if its not logical then its simply not true.  

20 Oct 2009 @ 22:42 by mortimer : binary model
perhaps a better distinction would be to use 1/0, true/false,
+1 and -1 would probably be more mathematically correct.

If premise is logical then it can be either 0 or 1
If premise is not logical then its guaranteed 0

That's my bootstrap.

I'm still not sure I understand Spock?
from what Spock says..
If premise is logical then it can be either 0 or 1
If premise is not logical then it can be either 0 or 1  

21 Oct 2009 @ 10:42 by Spock @75.69.156.209 : Dangerous Knowledge
When I see 0 and 1 together, it brings to mind probability, rather than the binary model.
When we speak of logic, we see that one definition of logic is that of the binary model. "The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions."
When I speak of logic, I am not working from that definition, but this one-
"A system of reasoning" or "The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science."
In computer science, we have the expression, "GIGO(garbage in garbage out). Working with 0s and 1s in this way, with rigid yes and no answers to every calculation, we are guaranteed logical answers that are true if our basic facts fed into the front end of the calculation are indeed true. If on the other hand, our basic raw data are flawed, the computer will still give us a logical answer, but it will not be a true (factual)answer.
If we try to wrap our minds around the concept of infinity, we see that it is inherently impossible for us to grasp the complete truth of anything.
When we look at probability, we see that the 1 and the 0 are just borders within which there are an infinite number of outcomes (all possible,but with some more likely), and if we dare to step into the mind of Georg Cantor, we see the possibility that there may be an infinite number of infinities.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that logic has it's limits.

Here is an interesting video, which I happened upon while discussing this with you. There is also a part two link to the right of the page. I think it synchronizes nicely with this discussion.


{LINK:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8492625684649921614&hl=en#|Dangerous Knowledge}  

22 Oct 2009 @ 05:39 by mortimer : True Wonder
Good movie, well at least the ending was good
Notice all those guys went bonkers?

brb (i gotta wonder)  

22 Oct 2009 @ 06:24 by mortimer : Truth is Multievident?
If I understand you Swanny. Methinks the expression of truth is multi-evident. Perhaps they saw the same thing but each expressed it different.

The quantum weirdness and fuzzy logic, degrees of truth and such---just goes to show that people never really had that much control of things to begin with. Which for me, leads our discussion back to the article. Magic, miracles and synchronicity are logical.  

21 Apr 2016 @ 08:34 by Travon @188.143.232.32 : VJSxOdRyncnuAnamSaG
Haha, shouldn't you be charging for that kind of knle?wdgeo!  

Other stories in
2011-11-28 22:15: Jumps
2007-08-20 21:59: Luxury subs
2004-11-19 17:50: Collective dream diary cartoons
2004-09-30 23:59: Breaking the Veil
2004-06-10 09:01: Dreaming
2004-05-31 05:46: Transcendental Realms


[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic] [PermaLink]? 


Link to this article as: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001948.htm
Main Page: ming.tv