Dark Matter:
I thought I made it clear in post #48 that this isn't about he said/she said or agreeing with someone mentioned.
It was about what he (Watts) and he (Davies) said until you found out that they were not saying what you wanted them to be saying. And now you claim it is irrelevant to talk about them, that it muddies the water.
But now, reversing course once again, you return to Davies:
Is there something about "the videos are not intended as an appeal to authority except to show that the insights in the OP are consistent with modern physics" you don't understand?
Is there something about the fact that what he says about modern physics is not consistent with the OP that you don’t understand? Is there something about the fact that it cannot be shown that what he says is not consistent without talking about what he actually says?
It's about what's possible and making meaningful subjective connections.
Your meaningful subjective connections amount to nothing more than:
A says X
B says not X
Therefore there is a meaningful subjective connection between A and B because both statements include ‘X’ and it is irrelevant to point out that B negates X.
If you want to say anything more meaningful about the authors you introduce and how they relate to the ideas and concept you introduce you have to stop pretending that the ideas and concepts don’t matter.
If what you want to talk about is:
The "knowingness" ... the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without the mediation of ideas.
then give up the misguided idea that this “knowingness” correlates to the concepts of physics. You cannot do physics without the mediation of ideas, and you cannot talk about their concepts without the mediation of ideas, and you cannot talk about the Infinite, God, self-referential system, synthesis of the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, Freedom and necessity, and Being without the mediation of ideas.
You cannot even talk about the possibility of a subjective connection without the mediation of ideas, for the possibility of such a connection is itself an idea. The possibility of such a connection is not the experience of this connection. If you have had this experience then why get yourself mired in the logic of relations? You would not ask:
And if they were really on to something, how?
Your experiential “knowingness” would tell you that the were and how. If you have not had that experience then you are just playing with ideas. That is part of what we do here, so don't it is not a game if you are not winning. Not all games are played to be won.
Nick_A:
That is the point. The universe is a machine. I know it as the body of a conscious Source.
You may “know it” as such but that is not what Tesla is saying. You have missed the point.
The universe is governed by mechanical laws and consciousness.
Are you expressing your opinion (knowledge?) or Tesla’s opinion? If the latter then you need to support the addition of consciousness to what he says. Where does he say this?
Consider the body of God, our universe, as between two poles.
I do not consider our universe to be the body of God. Neither did Tesla. Neither does Davies. Neither does Dark Matter, if he can calm down enough to see that.
Simone Weil wrote:
Simone Weil. Of course. I am not the only one laughing at her expected appearance.
