WOW!!  It blew me away to see you today: sorry that we couldn't have 
seen each other later and had a few games of pool- I was GAGGING for 
some by the end of the day, and I ended up roping some unsuspecting 
postgrad into playing with me- and ME buying all the beers and the 
games etc- bit wierd but at least I got the fix I wanted.  Trouble is 
that place (the Student Union pool hall) is diabolical, and not a 
nice plave to spend an evening-- have to work on finding a better 
place to play!  Anyhow: how was your visit?

Moving right along...

1) We talked about a conseptual scheme, you suggested the sixth sence was
it, I said 'I don't think so' but lets still aknowledge it. So: 'we have a
way of looking at things' - a conseptual scheme.

PS- luke- its "conceptual", not "conseptual"- (sorry :))

2) We talked about 'god' you said that perhaps god was absolute truth, I
said: 'maybe, but absolute truth is not got therefore, god and absolute
truth may share attributes, but they are not the same. God would have to be
more, or maybe even less than absolute truth.'

3) We talked about love and possibly religion as a way to excape the
conseptual scheme, and possibly the universe.

Ive always wanted to escapethe universe but now think that such a 
hope blinds us to the reality of the situtation: life mus involve 
ciming to terms with our actual situation- that is: physical 
organisms who have to try and deal with the fabric f the universe as 
we find it: the history of physics is a history of finding hidden 
"levers" in that fabric which we use to enhance our material 
situation, and to provide insights into the structure of ourselves.  
Thinking too much about "escape" blinds us to the revelations that 
learing aboutt his structure can provide us with.  Having read a bit 
about the development of physics i the last few days, I am now very 
doubtful about the idea that there could be "Many" sciences-- at 
least Ive coming to face the problem in a genuine manner for a 
change.


Now I'm goig to link our idea of a conseptual scheme with teh idea of
entity we cam up with ages ago, the conceptual scheme is part of our
entity.

Hold on- I think we understood different things by "entity"- and I 
havn't clicked ointo its importance: give me a summary (we should 
develop a set of definitions about the thiongs we are thinking about- 
 I';ll work on that)

So our model of ouselves:

Entity = conseptual scheme + emotional state + whatever else.

now I wonder weather our emotional system/state is actually part of our
conseptual scheme. The reason I pose this is that from our past discussions
we desided that some facters effected our emotional model, so works much
like our filter/conseptual scheme.

This is definitely true: for example: what emotional state we are in 
determines how we react to things, that is: determines what we 
believe to be the case na given situation: thus, when I am angry, I 
find things that previously were agreeable, disagreeable.

This would suggest:

Entity = conseptual scheme + whateve else.

Now when I think about it, what is the difference between entity and
conseptual scheme? I think it has something to do with time and experience.
At any one time we have our conseptual scheme, but because we exist though
time we are more. We are different one day from the next, it's not JUST
that out conseptual scheme  has altered, although I'm sure it has, it's
more. Or so I think. Assuming this the entity = conseptual scheme + what
has happend (that's our exp.)

I'd li8ke to condier the related idea, pretty much due to Gurdjieff, 
that "man has many "I"'s".  Jocelyn is a good person to ask about 
this, though I except most of the ex-Chief people can clue you in.  I 
understand it like this: the mind is not a simple, homogenous being: 
considered objectively, I mean different things by the term "I" at 
different times.  Our characters are composed of many sub-characters 
which vie for conrtol of the body and our lives, and are responsible 
for our attitudes at different times.  
Thus- I have both a "benign Intellectual" self, who loves to talk and 
discuss, and that;s the self that is wriitng this; I also have a 
"chill- out Lover" self, who deals with most of my relaxation and 
relationships; and I have a "Sadistic Destroyer" personality, who 
steps in from time to time and tries to wreck everything.  I'm 
conscious that this is very superficial,: its at most a first step on 
the road to mapping myself and my mind.  Freud had a related idea, in 
hos doctrines of the Id, Ego, and Superego- each of these plays a 
different role in our feelings and actions, and each has a different 
agenda concerning the way our lives should be led.  I'm not sure 
which of the two theories is best as a starting point-- my polan is 
to observe myself, try and fit everything into a pattern, and work 
out what role consciousness has in this picture- as we are not 
conscious all the time, and consciousness seems to be realtively 
independent of the actions of the various selfs.  I;ve just been 
discussing, ina tutorial, the doctrine of "consious inessentialism"- 
which basically saya that all human cognitive functions could take 
place without the presenceof consiousness, and there certainly seems 
to be SOMETHING rioght about this.  

Anyhow: I agree that our conceptual sheme is related to emotiona; 
state.  But what can we say about the relationshiop between the many 
selves that influence our emotions and the conceptual scheme which 
determines how we see the world.  The first step must be to consider 
the idea of "many-selves".

What do you reckon?   

btw: which that we could have had a few games of pool tonight.

Love, Ben