Why Are Readers Here...So...Interested in...God-Related Topics???

[GammaGlobulin]

3 minutes ago, RayWright said:

Wow, great story. Unfortunately when I use to bump into Peter on the bus, his hands weren't capable of playing guitar, so it was great news when he got back into playing.

In terms of other Rock / Guitar gods, made the stupid mistake of turning down a ticket for Jeff Beck @ Ronnie Scott's, as that would have been up close and personal.

Also missed Gary Moore, could have met him at Reading in '82, but was still working out in AUS, however did get to meet Tommy Emmanuel.

Did get to meet Snowy White at Reading in '84, in fact as he came off stage, his normal guitar roadie wasn't about so he passed me his gold SG to take back to his backstage tent. Got to help clean it and restring it, bloody hell it was heavy, hence the sustain he gets, especially when he worked with David Gilmore in Floyd.

Favorite '70s Guitar God is Steve Hackett, really nice bloke, met him when he snuck into a Kate Bush/ Peter Gabriel/Steve Harley benefit gig at Hammy Odean, was sitting a few seats away from me.

Not so much a Guitar God, but totally influential to many was / still is Pete Cornish who was the go-to guy for guitar effects pedal boards, use to have a workshop at the top corner of Denmark Street / Shaftesbury Avenue, " Can't talk, got to get Brian's (May) board ready for the next tour". Also Andy Summers, Robert Fripp, Steve Hackett, Michael Rutherford, Macca, Dave Gilmore etc etc. Great guy.

Take a look at his client list:-

http://www.petecornish.co.uk/client.html

 

 

Yes.

Nice remembrance/story, for sure.

 

Edited January 12 by GammaGlobulin

[Tippaporn]

37 minutes ago, RayWright said:

Wow, great story. Unfortunately when I use to bump into Peter on the bus, his hands weren't capable of playing guitar, so it was great news when he got back into playing.

In terms of other Rock / Guitar gods, made the stupid mistake of turning down a ticket for Jeff Beck @ Ronnie Scott's, as that would have been up close and personal.

Also missed Gary Moore, could have met him at Reading in '82, but was still working out in AUS, however did get to meet Tommy Emmanuel.

Did get to meet Snowy White at Reading in '84, in fact as he came off stage, his normal guitar roadie wasn't about so he passed me his gold SG to take back to his backstage tent. Got to help clean it and restring it, bloody hell it was heavy, hence the sustain he gets, especially when he worked with David Gilmore in Floyd.

Favorite '70s Guitar God is Steve Hackett, really nice bloke, met him when he snuck into a Kate Bush/ Peter Gabriel/Steve Harley benefit gig at Hammy Odean, was sitting a few seats away from me.

Not so much a Guitar God, but totally influential to many was / still is Pete Cornish who was the go-to guy for guitar effects pedal boards, use to have a workshop at the top corner of Denmark Street / Shaftesbury Avenue, " Can't talk, got to get Brian's (May) board ready for the next tour". Also Andy Summers, Robert Fripp, Steve Hackett, Michael Rutherford, Macca, Dave Gilmore etc etc. Great guy.

Take a look at his client list:-

http://www.petecornish.co.uk/client.html444444444

 

A fellow music aficionado. 

Wonderful tales, Ray.  And an illustrious list of talent which I'll have to explore.    You'd be a perfect fit for the music thread to share music, rock history, and personal stories.  I need  to get back there myself.  That's my favourite thread on AN. 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's my favourite thread on AN

 

Besides the God Thread?

 

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, swissie said:

Why Are Readers Here...So...Interested in...God-Related Topics???

Because we can't understand that we are here only to reproduce. Nothing else. No panic. Flowers and goldhamsters also don't know why they are here, except for reproduction.

 

Ah, but what you don't understand is that the idea that "we are here only to reproduce" is just that; an idea.  Since an idea accepted as true is in essence the definition of a belief then "we are here only to reproduce" is nothing more than a belief.  No different than those who believe that there is a reason and purpose for everything.  You ability to prove your belief as bedrock reality is just as impossible as anyone's belief that there's a reason and purpose for everything.  Since there are many who share your belief then you will tend to believe in the false logic that consensus equates to truth, and so you will comfortably spout your belief as rockbed reality with utmost confidence.

 

The trouble for you, and others, is that not everyone shares your belief.  So, in your feeling of righteousness you assume it your inherent right, and perhaps even duty, to abuse others for believing differently than you.

 

People are strange creatures for they have so much difficulty in seeing what they're doing. 

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, swissie said:

Very true and very frightening. Even university folks increasingly worship the "Evangelist TV Propaganda Machinery". Religious Fundamentalism in the Heartland of the US is rampant. To the point, that non "Bible Thumbers" have restricted career opportunites. Having to take intellectual refuge on the east/west coast of the US.

 

You forget that much of the basis upon which the founders created the U.S. was upon Christian principles.  You might want to educate yourself on the founding of the country and the debates which the founders had.  For your statements above are the proof in the pudding that you are wholly ignorant of any of that.  I do not use the word 'ignorant' as a slight so do not take offence.  I use the straight dictionary definition of it which assigns no judgement whatsoever:

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

[GammaGlobulin]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

You forget that much of the basis upon which the founders created the U.S. was upon Christian principles. 

 

ABSOLUTELY

NOT

TRUE

 

Where did you study your American History?

 

You need to broaden your horizons beyond US Elementary School...

 

Try Howard Zinn on for size, why don't you?

 

So many other good and decent authors that might change your warped view of American History for the better...

BUT, do you have the time and will to actually READ books, besides...

 

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, swissie said:

To instill some sort of sense, the most advanced monkey had to invent Gods and religions. The rest of all living things can do fine without Gods and Religions.

 

What is instinctive in other life forms is not instinctive in man.  Unfortunately man, at his current stage of understanding himself and the world he exists in, can never know, let alone experience, the reality felt and experienced by any other life form other than his own.  Man tends to personify not only God but the animal kingdom as well.  Good luck with that approach. 

 

5 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

As you may recall, Washoe knew nothing of God.

And, the researchers who handled Washoe made the choice to NOT inform Washoe the Chimp of his mortality.

It was the decision of the researchers and grad students who managed Washoe that .... to impart the knowledge of MORTALITY to a Chimp such as Washoe would be too cruel, and even rise to the level of Animal Cruelty.

 

When Washoe was shown an image of herself in the mirror, and asked what she was seeing, she replied: "Me, Washoe." Primate expert Jane Goodall, who has studied and lived with chimpanzees for decades, believes that this might indicate some level of self-awareness.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)

 

The degree of hubris of man in his ignorance, that only man has self-awareness, is truly comical.  It's just more proof in the pudding of how ignorant man truly is and, again, comical when one considers man likes to think he knows it all.  Or nearly most everything.  More comical still is that man believes that he is dead nuts correct in everything he assumes to know for sure. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

I can honestly say that I enjoy ALL of you comments.

 

However, who knows about the other members of this forum.

 

It's just a matter of taste; and we know that good taste is something frequently lacking on TV.

 

Well!!!!

Talk about BAD Taste!

 

That was a hilarious movie.  I loved it.  Perhaps it's satire went over your head?    If not then it was very much in 'good taste'. 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

The degree of hubris of man in his ignorance, that only man has self-awareness, is truly comical. 

 

NOT comical.

JUST logical.

 

I just hope that we are finally OVER those days of the 60s when we thought that lower animals had consciousness and their own personal Gods.

 

Don't be fooled.

 

The research was done....many decades ago....

 

Inside that chimp mind does NOT exist a Chomsky...for sure.

 

Don't believe me?

Then maybe you are a chimp.

 

STOP with your Pop Psychology beliefs, please, because they are totally unsubstantiated by valid research.

 

 Still....

UPs to YOU what you believe, I guess.

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Perhaps it's satire went over your head?

 

Is your name Tim Tiger?

 

Tim is the MAIN Man who thinks that only HE understands satire and irony.

 

How ironical, indeed.

 

He is one of the best examples of NitWit Irony among us Farangs, today, in Thailand, BAR NONE!

 

Old Baldy, by another name, maybe...

 

 

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

ABSOLUTELY

NOT

TRUE

 

Erm, "All men are created equal."  In the eyes of God.

 

22 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Where did you study your American History?

 

You need to broaden your horizons beyond US Elementary School...

 

Uhm, before you accuse someone of having a lack of education regarding American history pertaining to the founding of the country you might want to first ask them what they've studied.  Where is an irrelevant question.

 

Howard Zinn

Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." 

 

I prefer the view of history as seen through the eyes of those who experienced it and who penned their thoughts rather than the view of history as interpreted by another, as it is first sifted through their belief system.  Kinda the same as accepting a fact checkers conclusions of events after he's sifted those events using his personal beliefs as a filter.  You end up at best with a distorted version of reality and at worst a tailored version of reality.  But never the raw reality.  Nah, I'd rather not make that mistake. 

[GammaGlobulin]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist,

 

Yes.

Same as my fellow alumnus, Noam.

Great minds...

As they say.

 

[GammaGlobulin]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I prefer the view of history as seen through the eyes of those who experienced it and who penned their thoughts rather than the view of history as interpreted by another, as it is first sifted through their belief system.  Kinda the same as accepting a fact checkers conclusions of events after he's sifted those events using his personal beliefs as a filter.  You end up at best with a distorted version of reality and at worst a tailored version of reality.  But never the raw reality.  Nah, I'd rather not make that mistake. 

 

This is COMPLETE nonsense.

I just hope that you will live long enough to RUE THE DAY...that you penned this nonsensical comment of yours.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

JUST logical.

 

But everything can be made to be logical when given a certain and limited data set.  Don't you know that yet? 

 

20 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I just hope that we are finally OVER those days of the 60s when we thought that lower animals had consciousness and their own personal Gods.

 

  You mean animals have no consciousness?  Consciousness defined as possessing self awareness.  What are they then, robots?  I suggest you think things through a bit before posting ideas which have little thought put into them, in which case the conclusions reached more than likely will appear as the absurdities they are. 

 

27 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

The research was done....many decades ago....

 

Inside that chimp mind does NOT exist a Chomsky...for sure.

 

The researchers, though, tend to personify all other creatures.  A chimp is a chimp living in and experiencing an entirely different reality than that of a human.  Man's idea of evolution certainly plays into the tendency to personify as he tends to believe in a straight line evolution of continual progression towards what we are.  Because man doesn't understand what reality is he assumes that ultimately all of life is progressing to the same destination.  A higher, more advanced intellect - or whatever that destination is supposed to be in the minds of those who subscribe to those ideas.

 

Chimps are chimps and man is man and flowers are flowers and fish are fish and amoeba are amoeba and rocks are rocks why?  Because they're different.  That's the whole  point - which is utterly failed to be understood.  The types of consciousness which exist are literally infinite.  Why does consciousness want to experience itself in different forms?  That's a question which, perhaps, you would have an impossible time to understand.  Especially given that you have no interest in asking the question. 

 

To think it possible that a chimp could evolve to become a Chomsky is an absurdity.  A chimp is here to experience the reality of being a chimp, not of being a man whilst being a chimp.  If the consciousness which decided to experience itself as a chimp preferred to experience itself as a man then it would have been born a man and not a chimp.

 

43 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

STOP with your Pop Psychology beliefs, please, because they are totally unsubstantiated by valid research.

 

And there you go, GammaGlobulin.  Your beliefs are correct and anyone with different beliefs is wrong.  Not only are they wrong but stupid as well.  You are the smart one.  Can't you see through that thinking, GammaGlobulin?  Aren't the beliefs apparent to you yet?  Or the hypocrisy which inevitably results because there will assuredly be times when your beliefs will be proven false and so the smart one becomes the stupid one that whilst he believes himself smart looks down on the the others as stupid.

 

47 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 Still....

UPs to YOU what you believe, I guess.

 

And continuing with what I just said, you are absolutely spot on.  You get to believe what you want to believe and everyone else gets to believe what they want to believe.  That's precisely the way this reality works. And then we can all have endless discussions, debates, arguments, fights, wars on God, politics, marriage, work, and every other issue which exists on God's green earth.

 

What you fail to understand, GammaGlobulin, is that the ideas you hold to be true about this subject matter or any other are your personal beliefs.  You further fail to consider, and are most likely resistant to admit, that some of your beliefs may be dead wrong.  And, God help you, an opposing belief might be correct. 

 

59 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Don't believe me?

 

God, it's gotta be frustrating for you that others don't believe what you believe as you pound your head against the wall trying to get them convinced.  I feel for you. 

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Then maybe you are a chimp.

 

And if you can't have it your way and the person refuses to accept and adopt your belief as true for themselves then they are fair game to then discredit and abuse.  And people like to think of themselves as civilised.  The irony. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist,

 

Yes.

Same as my fellow alumnus, Noam.

Great minds...

As they say.

 

Any man who agrees with and shares one's personal beliefs is a Great mind.  It's only natural.  It's only inevitable. 

 

The truth is Zinn and Noam are simply two people of the 8+ billion who have their own beliefs.  But how well do their beliefs accurately represent bedrock reality?  Hmmm . . . Better not ask.  Best to just say, "I like those guys.  They think just like me.  They're Great minds (like me)" 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I prefer the view of history as seen through the eyes of those who experienced it and who penned their thoughts rather than the view of history as interpreted by another, as it is first sifted through their belief system.  Kinda the same as accepting a fact checkers conclusions of events after he's sifted those events using his personal beliefs as a filter.  You end up at best with a distorted version of reality and at worst a tailored version of reality.  But never the raw reality.  Nah, I'd rather not make that mistake. 

 

This is COMPLETE nonsense.

I just hope that you will live long enough to RUE THE DAY...that you penned this nonsensical comment of yours.

 

If it's nonsense then show me where and logically explain why and where my logic fails.  You have a golden opportunity, GammGlobulin.  Don't blow it. 

 

If you can't, or won't, then I've lost all respect for you.  People who make accusations in general terms only but will not get into specifics don't deserve respect.  They just blow a lot of wind to alleviate their frustrations. 

[Tippaporn]

@GammaGlobulin

 

Here's an analogy for you which you may find useful.

 

Imagine two people standing in front of an object of immense proportion, both standing with their noses almost touching this object.  They are each asked to interpret what this object is.  The one person, we'll refer to him as individual A, begins to provide his conclusions based on what data is apparent within his field of vision.  Now this person makes use of only their intellect as his perceptive tool.  The other person provides his conclusion and the two conclusions basically match.  Yet this other individual, we'll call him individual B, makes use of not only his intellect as a perceptive tool but his intuition as well.

 

Now whilst A is accepting the reality of this object at face value, given, of course, the amount of data he has to work with B's intuition is telling him that there's more to this object than what he is able to observe whilst his nose is pressed up against it.  And so he takes a few steps back.  Now more of this object is revealed to him.  He continues to step back, further and further until the entirety of the object is viewable to him.

 

A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive.  B's intuition causes him to question and that questioning is precisely what leads B to step back.

 

A then begins a conversation with B and asks whether his perception is the same.  B responds that, no, from his new vantage point his perception is greater since he has much more data available to him than he had with his much narrower perception.  Therefore his perception of what this object is does not match A's.  And so a heated argument begins.

 

A accuses B of being stupid for not perceiving what A perceives.  B shouts back, as there is quite some distance between them now, that he does indeed perceives what A perceives.  That is not the problem as A once had the limited perception and data set that A currently has.  But from his new vantage point, and with the new data available which this vantage point affords, he is able to perceive as A but also to perceive differently.  B communicates what he perceives back to A.  A has taken his limited perception and limited data set at face value, and furthermore firmly believes this to be the only perception possible of this object, as he also believes that what he perceives is all there is to perceive.  And so A yells back at B accusing him of being delusional for what he claims his perception to be.  For if what B claims to exist, per his perception and greater data set, is true then A would, or should, be able to perceive it as well.  And since A cannot perceive it then what B perceives cannot exist.

 

B shouts back at A, "Well, then, step back a bit to where I am and you, too, will be able to perceive what I perceive."  B then begins to provide to A the added data which was impossible to have from his initial vantage point.  A then accuses B of being non-rational and making no sense.  In return A provides B with his rationale and logic which supports the "truth" of what this object is.  B then counters to A with the fact that A's rationale and logic only appear sound given A's limited data set.  But with a greater data set then A's logical flaws would become apparent to him.

 

A refuses to suspend his beliefs as to what this object is and so refuses to step back from it.  In fact he indignantly shouts to A, "Well, what you're saying is crazy talk and no way am I going to go your way as I would then be crazy, too.  And I'm not crazy!!  You're crazy!!!"

 

A then exists the thread with a "humph!!!"

 

That about sums up this thread, BammaGlobulin.  You, like A, believes that the only things which exist are those which you are able to perceive.  That the only data which exists is the data currently available to you.  And since you refuse to even consider that more than what you are currently able to perceive, and that more data exists than what data you currently possess, you have unwittingly but willingly enclosed yourself in a small, a very small, mental box believing that there is nothing outside of it.

 

You're idea of what God is, or better put, the idea of God, is only that which you are able to perceive given your limited data set and what others perceive given their more expansive data set therefore is not r-e-a-l.  You are intellectually muscle bound and therefore are unable to reach your intuitions.

 

Yes, GammaGlobulin, I am nothing but an incoherent, babbling, irrational and illogical fool spewing delusional nonsense.  My writing is certainly proof of that.   

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You have a golden opportunity, GammGlobulin.  Don't blow it. 

 

Blowing is not my bag, Man!

 

[GammaGlobulin]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

an object of immense proportion

 

In your dreams.

[Tippaporn]

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Blowing is not my bag, Man!

 

 

Ah, there are no limits to creativity and therefore the creative clever excuses people use to avoid having their beliefs tested.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

In your dreams.

 

Why you didn't even give yourself the time to read my analogy before posting a reply.  So typical of folks to be dismissive.  Again, because they're afraid to learn and discover that their dear, precious and life-long held beliefs might be a bit faulty.  Sad.  Truly sad.  Again, you've lost all my respect for shamelessly running away.  Not that you care, I know.  Your pride is so great that it prevents the hurt from being felt. 

[GammaGlobulin]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive.

 

Deep.

Too Deep, perhaps, for me.

 

[GammaGlobulin]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Ah, there are no limits to creativity and therefore the creative clever excuses people use to avoid having their beliefs tested.

 

Ah!  There's the rub.

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

they're afraid to learn and discover that their dear, precious and life-long held beliefs might be a bit faulty.

 

Yes.

Faulty.

Just like...

 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

bedrock reality

 

You are joking....

Right?

 

You believe in a "bedrock reality"....?

 

ONE Particle can exist in two places at the same time....and....

You still insist that there is an observable bedrock reality???

 

Your views are far too classical to make any sense to me, at this late date.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

That's my favourite thread on AN

Besides the God Thread?

 

You see, GammaGlobulin, the entire premise of your OP was faulty.  Fatally so.  For you believe that the God thread is only about God and religion.  Now whilst it is certainly true that the thread was initiated as a discussion of beliefs about God, perhaps in strictly religious terms, the thread has since evolved over the years.  It is no longer dedicated to the OP.  Rather, as @Sunmaster has explained earlier, it has morphed to include discussions of all types, including science.  It's now a thread with regular members holding a wide array of different thoughts and ideas.

 

So why did you start this thread?  Perhaps your reply of affirmation to swissie gives us a rather revealing clue.

 

9 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

9 hours ago, swissie said:

Very true and very frightening. Even university folks increasingly worship the "Evangelist TV Propaganda Machinery". Religious Fundamentalism in the Heartland of the US is rampant. To the point, that non "Bible Thumbers" have restricted career opportunites. Having to take intellectual refuge on the east/west coast of the US.

Agree

 

You are not religious, you don't believe in any God or even in the concept of a God, and you feel threatened by those who do.  This thread was a means to push back.

 

BTW, I will still continue to read and enjoy your other posts as much as I read and enjoy your posts on this thread.  I am not so foolish as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

[Sunmaster]

9 hours ago, swissie said:

Why Are Readers Here...So...Interested in...God-Related Topics???

Because we can't understand that we are here only to reproduce. Nothing else. No panic. Flowers and goldhamsters also don't know why they are here, except for reproduction.

To instill some sort of sense, the most advanced monkey had to invent Gods and religions. The rest of all living things can do fine without Gods and Religions.

 

You sure got it all figured out 555

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Deep.

Too Deep, perhaps, for me.

 

It takes a great deal of time and effort to understand what lays beyond our limited world for it is indeed vast.  We are all here in this world for our own purposes, whether we understand that or not.  So of course the intentions each of us has is not the same.  Hence your question in your OP asking why everyone doesn't get interested in subjects like science.  The questions that some  in this world are indeed deep and since intentions are different for all then naturally what interests the likes of me and, say Sunmaster, are not your cup of tea.  Do you take cream and sugar?

 

If you have no interest in going deeper, though, then what makes you expect that you would understand any of the discussions now taking place in the God thread?  Wouldn't it be similar to a science hobbyist attending a conference attended by great scientists?  You'd get lost in their discussions, wouldn't you? 

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Ah!  There's the rub.

 

 

 

Not sure I get the connection.

[Chris Daley]

Because when you are over the age of 40 you have solved every problem in life except the meaning of life itself.