Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!
The schism: Epistemologically, the religious self-contradictory misgiving over science could be traced back in history to a time when Pope Urban VIII used the Church Inquisition on Galileo for Galileo’s emergence of Science and Reason, from their then total submission of Faith to Catholicism (or Religionism) in the early 17th century. Poignantly, such religious attempts to misdirect or derail the progress of science have had even reverberated today, notably Creationism vs. Evolution, in the United States—a most scientifically-advanced nation on Earth! (Please see the ongoing forum Why do Creationists pick on Evolution? next door)
By modern definition: The human inquiries (intellectual and spiritual; or those that embody disciplines of science, religion, arts, philosophy, psychology, et cetera) define our basic mentality and livelihoods worldwide. Since our humanity, Science (our technology and inventions) and Religion (our quest for meaningful survivorship) have been persistently building, growing, interweaving, and modulating our consciousness, conscience, and civilization as a whole on Earth, regardless of where they each might have had originated—in the East, West, North, South, or at the Middle East.
Whereas for the purpose of this forum, we must recognize the fact that all human inquiries, particularly Science and Religion, involve invariably the intellectual and spiritual dynamism of our Mind within: albeit the use, misuse, and/or abuse of our own mentality, as well as the behavior, character, that our Mind may—and will—readily emulate, simulate, assume, and control.
More often than not, we are first of all driven by our own inner impulses, emotions, dreams, visions, self-interests, experiences, and creativities, as necessary to survive, and, to grow better. Also, we are humankind of unbound intelligence: possessing the powers for analyzing, evaluating, improving, advancing, and expanding our own rationalized visions (as in Science) or dreams (as in Religion) to effect our livelihoods; and/or for solving problems that may—and will—arise from time to time, and under varied circumstances, whether hostile or hospitable; thrilled or tormented; widely ranged in our written history, even today and beyond, worldwide. These are the common observations of our humanity that we have just begun to understand and appreciate today, from a global perspective.
Needless to say, our global Mind is the most complex and powerful entity of life on Earth, since the evolution of humankind; a fact that no doubt warrants the special treatment of our upmost attention, respect, curiosity, inquiry, education, scrutiny, and admiration, at all time: be it in history, at present, or beyond.
Specifically, and psychologically, in both the intellectual and spiritual dynamism: Science and Religion represent the 2 very basic, active, and dynamic modes of human mental creativity within (among of course the many other forms of perceptivity; reflectivity; memory; et cetera), and they all can—and will—affect and influence our hearts and minds daily, in life and for life.
Religion is the most primal of all in our innate creativity (since the rock-art of shamanism over 50,000 years ago) that entails our deep emotions, diverse spirits, our evolved ways of survival: our religiosities or religious belief-systems which are often created through and by our intuitive, holistic idealizations; and/or immortalizations of our memories of past, tribal livelihoods, relationships, wishes, prophecies, and/or fantasies, that are usually indistinguishable from those of our legends, folklores, fictions, fairy tales; or any of literary creations that may still be found in the varied cultures, especially in those that had had been etched in the many, religious texts, traditions of the world today.
Whereas Science (and technology) with its constant evolution, and by our action and education is mainly derived from our innate yearnings for the common sense, cause and effect, within our curiosity, inquiry, order, harmony, logics, analytical observations, experiences, experimentations, and discoveries of the surrounding physical world—all as necessary for the grasping of our practical livelihoods (including our past, present, future expectations or imaginations); spirituality; survivorship; integrity; and progresses that we humans have had been able to achieve to date, especially since the spread of the European Renaissance just over 500 years ago.
As such, the Renaissance notwithstanding, while devoutly pantheistic or pan-dialectic in thought and/or in practice—and growing in polar opposite of each other—both Religion and Science are all the creative modalities and manifestations of our deepest conscience and our fast-growing intellectual and spiritual concepts of our own lives and time today: the civil growths and developments that have long been defining, shaping, and advancing our humanity, civilization, and consciousness as a unity and continuity on Earth.
Metaphorically, Religion and Science are both, in essence, and just, as integral and as fundamental as the fast-multiplying roots and shoots to the healthily-growing tree-system in entirety: which so like the vigor, rigor, and progress of our own vital humanity and civilization as a whole, without one or the other, the tree-system will neither strive nor thrive on Earth, let alone multiply.
Consequently, while lunging this forum, and only with our now finest realization: through and by our calm, balanced, and common beneficial creativities in Science and in Religion as a whole—not by denying or attacking each other; but by acknowledging our each other’s respective progress, evolution, check and balance, in history, in contrast, as well as in mutual learning, and understanding each other’s modes of action, merits, and pitfalls in our vast humanity as a whole—and only then, can we begin to unravel, uplift, and appreciate the very dynamism of our own holistic Mind (the spiritual and scientific, or the religious and intellectual kind alike), which until now has remained the most-misconstrued, tree-system of our humankind.
Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to discuss this forum. Best wishes, Mong 5/5/6usct12:35a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006
Hi Mong,
Best of luck with this!!!
I am yet to be convinced that reconciliation is even understood as a word, in these here parts, and that is such a shame. Better things are possible. You know it. I know it.
In my opinion (
) the moment we 'choose a side', we un-choose its (perceived) 'opposite', and if 'Science' and 'Religion' are thought to be opposing one another then the only way to reconcile them is to understand that in Reality they do not oppose.
The reconciliation lies in the motivation. They are both trying to understand and connect to their One True Origin. The Science of Nature and the God of Intuition are (searching for) physical and spiritual 'proof' respectively.
We have to know what is 'True', Universally, to promote any kind of harmony in ourselves. (True also of the 'individual').
Our 'world views' are mostly formed when we are very small, and so to change these views when we are older takes a lot of personal work...
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
I would propose a more reconciling school system, for one thing, and promote unity there, when it is still in the 'good idea' stage. How about a 'Science of Religion', or a 'Religion of Science' educationally based system? We could study such classics as 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, or maybe some of C. G. Jung's outstanding work?
One way for the 'older student' (of life) is to see everything as metaphor for the One True Thing, which, when you seriously think about it, simply has to be 'The One True Thing!!' There can only be one ultimate truth, but we can give it as many names as we can conceive of... I personally like the Zen/Tao approach, with the added 'twist' that we could accept a common 'name' for the 'ALL', if we were to concentrate on acceptance for the common good.
"WE are here to sense, and make sense of what we sense. And sometimes we have to know non-sense, so that we know what NOT to sense. If we know non-sense, then we also know sense. Do you sense any of this, or is it non-sense?"
- The wind only makes a sound when it hits something...
regards,
Steve.
Best of luck with this!!!
I am yet to be convinced that reconciliation is even understood as a word, in these here parts, and that is such a shame. Better things are possible. You know it. I know it.
In my opinion (
) the moment we 'choose a side', we un-choose its (perceived) 'opposite', and if 'Science' and 'Religion' are thought to be opposing one another then the only way to reconcile them is to understand that in Reality they do not oppose. The reconciliation lies in the motivation. They are both trying to understand and connect to their One True Origin. The Science of Nature and the God of Intuition are (searching for) physical and spiritual 'proof' respectively.
We have to know what is 'True', Universally, to promote any kind of harmony in ourselves. (True also of the 'individual').
Our 'world views' are mostly formed when we are very small, and so to change these views when we are older takes a lot of personal work...
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
I would propose a more reconciling school system, for one thing, and promote unity there, when it is still in the 'good idea' stage. How about a 'Science of Religion', or a 'Religion of Science' educationally based system? We could study such classics as 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, or maybe some of C. G. Jung's outstanding work?
One way for the 'older student' (of life) is to see everything as metaphor for the One True Thing, which, when you seriously think about it, simply has to be 'The One True Thing!!' There can only be one ultimate truth, but we can give it as many names as we can conceive of... I personally like the Zen/Tao approach, with the added 'twist' that we could accept a common 'name' for the 'ALL', if we were to concentrate on acceptance for the common good.
"WE are here to sense, and make sense of what we sense. And sometimes we have to know non-sense, so that we know what NOT to sense. If we know non-sense, then we also know sense. Do you sense any of this, or is it non-sense?"
- The wind only makes a sound when it hits something...
regards,
Steve.
Mong, I loved reading this post. I've been down the path of religion and hit a dead end and then turned to science and after quite a journey found the appearance of a merging of the paths. Like going full circle in what appears a different direction but ending up at a similar location but with a different perspective. On one hand, it's a bit unsettling to realize your entire existance is spent immersed in a universe that has so much unknown to it and only a limited scope in which you can view it, but on the other hand it's extremely pleasing to realize what reality is and can be, is to a much larger extent than most people recognize, up to individual control. It seems there are answers and solutions to almost anything imagineable and this can be intimidating in that with such abilities possible, there are always tradeoffs and consequences and it becomes a matter of foresight, values and knowledge in controlling these to achieve the desired results ... but then this changing emphasis from what's possible into what's desired, opens up yet another challenge more perplexing in many ways than simply learning how to do something ... should you do it, and in what manner, with what desired effects and what risks and consequences etc. These aren't easily analyzed by a computer program because a computer doesn't have an understanding of what it is to be human and how to fulfill human desires, it's simply one of those tools that provide this empowerment.
So I guess, in many ways science and technology are progressing along the lines of a magic genie that will able to grant wishes, in a sense. Now the question is whether the human/religious/spiritual side of this equation will be able to make the right wish when the opportunity is present.
Hopefully, a lot of conflicts will be resolved by the time we get there ... though exactly what evidence suggests this will be true I don't know. My guess is that we're going to experience a few lessons from the school of hard knocks somewhere along the line and that necessity with be the mother of invention in this regard, though it would be nice to at least see this not happen in an overly painful manner ... I guess time will tell.
Just for fun, and to sound a bit zen - The desired answers can be found, but you first need to ask the right questions.
So I guess, in many ways science and technology are progressing along the lines of a magic genie that will able to grant wishes, in a sense. Now the question is whether the human/religious/spiritual side of this equation will be able to make the right wish when the opportunity is present.
Hopefully, a lot of conflicts will be resolved by the time we get there ... though exactly what evidence suggests this will be true I don't know. My guess is that we're going to experience a few lessons from the school of hard knocks somewhere along the line and that necessity with be the mother of invention in this regard, though it would be nice to at least see this not happen in an overly painful manner ... I guess time will tell.
Just for fun, and to sound a bit zen - The desired answers can be found, but you first need to ask the right questions.
Greetings, everybody and mind!
Specifically, Steve and Steven, your points are well said, and taken. Thank you! I hope more readers would be able to express their voices herein, too!
Nonetheless, I would like to elaborate abit hereunder, regarding your nice posts above.
1) The evolution of Modern Mind: You’re right, Steve, we need to establish a common ground herein in Science and Religion, before any reconciliation can be made between these dynamically opposing lines of thinking in our mind. This is why we as modern thinking, feeling, human beings, need to understand the histories of Religion and Science, especially the comparative histories and evolution of religions and sciences, interdisciplinary, pluralistically and multiculturally, worldwide.
So far, none, in our written history, had had been able to do that inclusively—until now! Even if there had had been any thinkers who attempted to do that, they could only do it discriminately, partially, or locally, or at best, regionally. This is because they all had had been limited to their own local experience and observation; and that is why we now have all the fragmented philosophies of life and mind and religions all over the world—until today. As intellectual-spiritual beings ourselves, especially in the 21st century, we should now be able to sort, analyze, and reach a conclusion, and a reconciliation of our chiasmic Religion and Science, with an open Modern Mind, forever evolving and expanding with our knowledge of things!
2) The evolution and abuse of Religion: All the world religions (archaic or reformed)—including the Abrahamic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—had had been organized initially by a few supernaturalists or cultists—the superstitious intellectuals of their times—in order to solve their survival problems and growing spirits, prevalent in their then still uncharacterized and segregated worlds on Earth.
Historically, once the organized superstitions and rituals became accepted—often times by force or coercion of the gullible—a consecrated or doctrinal religion was born; wherein the cultists now called monks or priests, would soon be able to wield enormous survival and spiritual power over their religious followers.
Specifically, by the influence of their survival successes during the hard times at the Middle East and Europe, both the followers (and converts) of Christianity and Islam have had been sheltered (as well as abused) by their religions since the 4th and 7th centuries, respectively.
In Christianity, we have witnessed the absolute power corrupted absolutely in the Catholic Church—as Martin Luther (1483-1546) dared to discover and expose with a good conscience!—whereas in Islam, most of the devout followers couldn’t (or even won’t) identify the fact that their own doctrinal belief-system could wield and have had indeed been wielding the absolute (sometimes abusive) power over them by their imams or mullahs—even today!
As such, the Muslim survival creativities, have had since been stumped by their own religion and opportunistic religionists, who have had often misled them by blaming others or the infidels for their own leadership inadequacy and failures in all human affairs of the modern times. The 9/11 attacks on the US notwithstanding, the world Islamic adverse reactions to the recent Danish cartoons were clearly agitated and manipulated by the imams, who were then too eager to show the world of their still “archaic and persistent mind control” power over the gullible Muslims!
Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today? With this understanding, we—as educated modern human beings; intellectually and spiritually; empathically and sympathetically—must now help the impoverished Muslims to reflect and introspect themselves—may be in a small way through this global forum in the Internet—if they were to realize and help themselves to adapt to this evermore dynamic zeitgeist of the 21st century and beyond. May be Salman Rushdie and other Islamic thinkers will provide a lead in this direction!
As for other religions, superstitions, metaphysics, such as, paganism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc; historically and presently, they are not as destructive as the monolithic monotheism as Christianity and Islam in nature; so, they would be able to adapt to the pluralistic 21st-century zeitgeist more easily and readily, so as to live and survive meaningfully on this diverse multicultural planet Earth!
3) The process of reconciling Scientific and Religious Thinkings: Last, but not least, Steven, I think I knew exactly what you meant—as a Japanese Zen master would say, you are reaching your “satori” soon, a subtle realization or illumination, in which you’ll have a complete sense of understanding and reconciling your knowledge and experience of Religion (concerning your heart) and Science (concerning your mind)! Or, Steve would say, the Infinite Unity! Congratulations to both of you! Happy reading and scrutinizing, as only by this active process, that we’ll keep our mind forever expanding and evolving in this Universe and beyond!
Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Best wishes, Mong 5/7/6usct1:59p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006
Specifically, Steve and Steven, your points are well said, and taken. Thank you! I hope more readers would be able to express their voices herein, too!
Nonetheless, I would like to elaborate abit hereunder, regarding your nice posts above.
1) The evolution of Modern Mind: You’re right, Steve, we need to establish a common ground herein in Science and Religion, before any reconciliation can be made between these dynamically opposing lines of thinking in our mind. This is why we as modern thinking, feeling, human beings, need to understand the histories of Religion and Science, especially the comparative histories and evolution of religions and sciences, interdisciplinary, pluralistically and multiculturally, worldwide.
So far, none, in our written history, had had been able to do that inclusively—until now! Even if there had had been any thinkers who attempted to do that, they could only do it discriminately, partially, or locally, or at best, regionally. This is because they all had had been limited to their own local experience and observation; and that is why we now have all the fragmented philosophies of life and mind and religions all over the world—until today. As intellectual-spiritual beings ourselves, especially in the 21st century, we should now be able to sort, analyze, and reach a conclusion, and a reconciliation of our chiasmic Religion and Science, with an open Modern Mind, forever evolving and expanding with our knowledge of things!
2) The evolution and abuse of Religion: All the world religions (archaic or reformed)—including the Abrahamic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—had had been organized initially by a few supernaturalists or cultists—the superstitious intellectuals of their times—in order to solve their survival problems and growing spirits, prevalent in their then still uncharacterized and segregated worlds on Earth.
Historically, once the organized superstitions and rituals became accepted—often times by force or coercion of the gullible—a consecrated or doctrinal religion was born; wherein the cultists now called monks or priests, would soon be able to wield enormous survival and spiritual power over their religious followers.
Specifically, by the influence of their survival successes during the hard times at the Middle East and Europe, both the followers (and converts) of Christianity and Islam have had been sheltered (as well as abused) by their religions since the 4th and 7th centuries, respectively.
In Christianity, we have witnessed the absolute power corrupted absolutely in the Catholic Church—as Martin Luther (1483-1546) dared to discover and expose with a good conscience!—whereas in Islam, most of the devout followers couldn’t (or even won’t) identify the fact that their own doctrinal belief-system could wield and have had indeed been wielding the absolute (sometimes abusive) power over them by their imams or mullahs—even today!
As such, the Muslim survival creativities, have had since been stumped by their own religion and opportunistic religionists, who have had often misled them by blaming others or the infidels for their own leadership inadequacy and failures in all human affairs of the modern times. The 9/11 attacks on the US notwithstanding, the world Islamic adverse reactions to the recent Danish cartoons were clearly agitated and manipulated by the imams, who were then too eager to show the world of their still “archaic and persistent mind control” power over the gullible Muslims!
Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today? With this understanding, we—as educated modern human beings; intellectually and spiritually; empathically and sympathetically—must now help the impoverished Muslims to reflect and introspect themselves—may be in a small way through this global forum in the Internet—if they were to realize and help themselves to adapt to this evermore dynamic zeitgeist of the 21st century and beyond. May be Salman Rushdie and other Islamic thinkers will provide a lead in this direction!
As for other religions, superstitions, metaphysics, such as, paganism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc; historically and presently, they are not as destructive as the monolithic monotheism as Christianity and Islam in nature; so, they would be able to adapt to the pluralistic 21st-century zeitgeist more easily and readily, so as to live and survive meaningfully on this diverse multicultural planet Earth!
3) The process of reconciling Scientific and Religious Thinkings: Last, but not least, Steven, I think I knew exactly what you meant—as a Japanese Zen master would say, you are reaching your “satori” soon, a subtle realization or illumination, in which you’ll have a complete sense of understanding and reconciling your knowledge and experience of Religion (concerning your heart) and Science (concerning your mind)! Or, Steve would say, the Infinite Unity! Congratulations to both of you! Happy reading and scrutinizing, as only by this active process, that we’ll keep our mind forever expanding and evolving in this Universe and beyond!
Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Best wishes, Mong 5/7/6usct1:59p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006
QUOTE (Mong H Tan+ PhD,May 7 2006, 07:00 PM)
1) The evolution of Modern Mind: You’re right, Steve, we need to establish a common ground herein in Science and Religion, before any reconciliation can be made between these dynamically opposing lines of thinking in our mind. This is why we as modern thinking, feeling, human beings, need to understand the histories of Religion and Science, especially the comparative histories and evolution of religions and sciences, interdisciplinary, pluralistically and multiculturally, worldwide.
So far, none, in our written history, had had been able to do that inclusively—until now! Even if there had had been any thinkers who attempted to do that, they could only do it discriminately, partially, or locally, or at best, regionally. This is because they all had had been limited to their own local experience and observation; and that is why we now have all the fragmented philosophies of life and mind and religions all over the world—until today. As intellectual-spiritual beings ourselves, especially in the 21st century, we should now be able to sort, analyze, and reach a conclusion, and a reconciliation of our chiasmic Religion and Science, with an open Modern Mind, forever evolving and expanding with our knowledge of things!
The terms "Global", "Humanity", "Unity" and "Oneness" etc. are mental simplifications of reality. Yes, humanity exists, but not as a single entity with a single purpose or desire.
I believe the reason why it is often seen as little progress having been made in uniting people globally, is simply because the typical vision of how his would be manifested is incorrect and unrealistic. An orchard needs tending, but a forest does not. An orchard is created from a single simple mental construction that isn't compatible with nature and continual outside intervention must occur to maintain this limited and unnatural state. A forest has many diverse aspects, including the ability to evolve and grow even more complex and resilient. Assexual reproduction hasn't been competitive because all offspring are basically cloned copies of the parent - a single virus can destroy the entire population. Sexual reproduction on the other hand benefits from diversity. Nature on a larger scale has even found greater use for diversity and specialization and is able to support life in most every corner of the world by taking this even further. Life and growth flourish when diversity is tolerated. Incorrectly applying the concept of a unity to humanity has caused many wars and led to stagnant and oppressive cultures as well (though natural pressures tend to diminish these over time, the destruction in the interim seems avoidable with enough foresight).
Now I'm not saying a unity in humanity can't be beneficial or that seeing it on a large scale is impossible, but I'm saying that it can only occur stably as a unity in diversity and individuality. I don't want to sound nationalistic here but simply want to use this as an example. When the United States was initially formed, there was much pride and love for the nation because it stood not for a nation only able to support a single culture but a creation that was simply a product of the mutual desires for independent colonies to defend their own independence. I don't believe much of this view is still retained though and internal conflicts over trying to mold the nation into an enforced collective with a limited tolerance for economic and social diversity has slowly eatten away at the benefits of individual liberty and the social and economic growths experience when diversity and peaceful competition in their respective spheres (which overlap to a large extent) is tolerated. There never was an "American Dream", there have been a wide variety of various dreams. The only real common thread was simply a desire to be peacefully allowed to pursue them. Of course, sometimes physical conflicts occur and that's where government has a legitimate role, as a peacekeeper and arbitrar and not a ruler. (Again, I apologize for specifically putting the U.S. in here when the subject regards a larger perspective but I think the analogy holds true at larger scales).
The "dream" for what humanity could be, IMO, is that a mutual recognition of the value of having human cultures be a smorgasbord of paths and options to pursue instead of a production line with a limited menu to select from. Greed and envy need to be overcome. This is a challenge because there are likely many legitimate complaints over injustices that have occured but at some point it seems the slate needs to be wiped clean and prior injustuces forgiven, as long as future, figurative, fences are respected.
There's a saying that "good fences make good neighbors" and also "a man is the king of his own castle". Of course this also implies that people are responsible for whatever state they keep their castle, as well as liable when their actions harm vested interests outside their own.
I don't believe there is any other long-term, peaceful and prosperous solution to the state of things than to simply see humanity as it truely and physically is - a diverse group of individuals with many and differed desires, dreams, traits, knowledge, goals and resources etc. When the use of the terms "society", "culture", "democracy" etc. are used to justify forcefully sacrificing the interests of individuals, then these conflicts result in a fracturing of that unity, a breakdown in the support, and a loss of peace and prosperity paying for the costs of these conflicts in a variety of ways. This occurs in many ways, but you have some trying to get ahead, not by creating their own value, but by coercively taking it from others, and you have envy trying to make everyone equal, not in terms of protection of rights, or freedom and liberty, but in terms of lifestyle, economics, social beliefs, education etc.
Some day, I believe, a growing desire for peace and independence will be commonly recognized around the world. Since WWII the generally accepted number of nations existing has increased significantly and this pattern appears to be continuing. In one sense, the world is more tightly knit than ever before but this has also removed many local physical barriers to independence and instead the issue has become more social and cultural. A landlocked town, 200 years ago had less of an ability to trade internationally and was more dependent upon trade arrangements with neighboring provinces or a close port city to maintain itself and grow. Now these physical dependencies are less critical as technology allows local areas, and even individuals to access global marketplaces and reduce the labor needed for basic needs like food and housing.
It seems anytime too much power is placed in too few hands, this ends up as a focal point for corruption and people become seduced by power and then the sacrificing of individuals begins.
I don't encourage a forced redistribution to this, as this would be hypocritical and violate the intention of seeing a more peaceful and prosperous state exist, but I do encourage people to defend themselves and the value of their efforts and not be swayed or coerced into supporting or encouraging institutions that survive, not on their own merit, but by being forceful and destructively imposed on others.
I have nothing against religion itself and if a community desired to live according their own religious beliefs, that's fine. Even including things I might consider destructive to themselves. If they aren't holding people captive in this institution, then I won't claim to have an ability to impose my judgement on their beliefs, but their decisions can't justly extend to intruding into other communities without conflicts resulting. Ideally this concept should extend down to individuals, or at least family units as is natural when children are considered. Though realistically, some actions inevitably affect more than simply the person perfomring that action - dumping toxics into a river isn't an action solely up to individual discretion because this actions harms people outside that individual. If someone could pollute their own air and not have it harm others, they'd be free to do so, but this isn't the case in real life so obviously some form of government effectively exists on larger scales to resolve these disputes but I see this form of enforceable agreements as simply a reality that will always need to be addressed but not an ideal in need of being replicated whenever possible.
As usual, I tend to drift and ramble but again, thank you for posting this thread. Yes, I have some hope that there's a brighter future in store, but I also believe there will inevitably be costs paid getting there. If everyone suddenly had an insight tomorrow into what could be, things could change in a short time. There are few physical barriers in this regard, the limits are largely mental.
So far, none, in our written history, had had been able to do that inclusively—until now! Even if there had had been any thinkers who attempted to do that, they could only do it discriminately, partially, or locally, or at best, regionally. This is because they all had had been limited to their own local experience and observation; and that is why we now have all the fragmented philosophies of life and mind and religions all over the world—until today. As intellectual-spiritual beings ourselves, especially in the 21st century, we should now be able to sort, analyze, and reach a conclusion, and a reconciliation of our chiasmic Religion and Science, with an open Modern Mind, forever evolving and expanding with our knowledge of things!
The terms "Global", "Humanity", "Unity" and "Oneness" etc. are mental simplifications of reality. Yes, humanity exists, but not as a single entity with a single purpose or desire.
I believe the reason why it is often seen as little progress having been made in uniting people globally, is simply because the typical vision of how his would be manifested is incorrect and unrealistic. An orchard needs tending, but a forest does not. An orchard is created from a single simple mental construction that isn't compatible with nature and continual outside intervention must occur to maintain this limited and unnatural state. A forest has many diverse aspects, including the ability to evolve and grow even more complex and resilient. Assexual reproduction hasn't been competitive because all offspring are basically cloned copies of the parent - a single virus can destroy the entire population. Sexual reproduction on the other hand benefits from diversity. Nature on a larger scale has even found greater use for diversity and specialization and is able to support life in most every corner of the world by taking this even further. Life and growth flourish when diversity is tolerated. Incorrectly applying the concept of a unity to humanity has caused many wars and led to stagnant and oppressive cultures as well (though natural pressures tend to diminish these over time, the destruction in the interim seems avoidable with enough foresight).
Now I'm not saying a unity in humanity can't be beneficial or that seeing it on a large scale is impossible, but I'm saying that it can only occur stably as a unity in diversity and individuality. I don't want to sound nationalistic here but simply want to use this as an example. When the United States was initially formed, there was much pride and love for the nation because it stood not for a nation only able to support a single culture but a creation that was simply a product of the mutual desires for independent colonies to defend their own independence. I don't believe much of this view is still retained though and internal conflicts over trying to mold the nation into an enforced collective with a limited tolerance for economic and social diversity has slowly eatten away at the benefits of individual liberty and the social and economic growths experience when diversity and peaceful competition in their respective spheres (which overlap to a large extent) is tolerated. There never was an "American Dream", there have been a wide variety of various dreams. The only real common thread was simply a desire to be peacefully allowed to pursue them. Of course, sometimes physical conflicts occur and that's where government has a legitimate role, as a peacekeeper and arbitrar and not a ruler. (Again, I apologize for specifically putting the U.S. in here when the subject regards a larger perspective but I think the analogy holds true at larger scales).
The "dream" for what humanity could be, IMO, is that a mutual recognition of the value of having human cultures be a smorgasbord of paths and options to pursue instead of a production line with a limited menu to select from. Greed and envy need to be overcome. This is a challenge because there are likely many legitimate complaints over injustices that have occured but at some point it seems the slate needs to be wiped clean and prior injustuces forgiven, as long as future, figurative, fences are respected.
There's a saying that "good fences make good neighbors" and also "a man is the king of his own castle". Of course this also implies that people are responsible for whatever state they keep their castle, as well as liable when their actions harm vested interests outside their own.
I don't believe there is any other long-term, peaceful and prosperous solution to the state of things than to simply see humanity as it truely and physically is - a diverse group of individuals with many and differed desires, dreams, traits, knowledge, goals and resources etc. When the use of the terms "society", "culture", "democracy" etc. are used to justify forcefully sacrificing the interests of individuals, then these conflicts result in a fracturing of that unity, a breakdown in the support, and a loss of peace and prosperity paying for the costs of these conflicts in a variety of ways. This occurs in many ways, but you have some trying to get ahead, not by creating their own value, but by coercively taking it from others, and you have envy trying to make everyone equal, not in terms of protection of rights, or freedom and liberty, but in terms of lifestyle, economics, social beliefs, education etc.
Some day, I believe, a growing desire for peace and independence will be commonly recognized around the world. Since WWII the generally accepted number of nations existing has increased significantly and this pattern appears to be continuing. In one sense, the world is more tightly knit than ever before but this has also removed many local physical barriers to independence and instead the issue has become more social and cultural. A landlocked town, 200 years ago had less of an ability to trade internationally and was more dependent upon trade arrangements with neighboring provinces or a close port city to maintain itself and grow. Now these physical dependencies are less critical as technology allows local areas, and even individuals to access global marketplaces and reduce the labor needed for basic needs like food and housing.
QUOTE
2) The evolution and abuse of Religion: All the world religions (archaic or reformed)—including the Abrahamic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—had had been organized initially by a few supernaturalists or cultists—the superstitious intellectuals of their times—in order to solve their survival problems and growing spirits, prevalent in their then still uncharacterized and segregated worlds on Earth.
Historically, once the organized superstitions and rituals became accepted—often times by force or coercion of the gullible—a consecrated or doctrinal religion was born; wherein the cultists now called monks or priests, would soon be able to wield enormous survival and spiritual power over their religious followers.
Specifically, by the influence of their survival successes during the hard times at the Middle East and Europe, both the followers (and converts) of Christianity and Islam have had been sheltered (as well as abused) by their religions since the 4th and 7th centuries, respectively.
In Christianity, we have witnessed the absolute power corrupted absolutely in the Catholic Church—as Martin Luther (1483-1546) dared to discover and expose with a good conscience!—whereas in Islam, most of the devout followers couldn’t (or even won’t) identify the fact that their own doctrinal belief-system could wield and have had indeed been wielding the absolute (sometimes abusive) power over them by their imams or mullahs—even today!
As such, the Muslim survival creativities, have had since been stumped by their own religion and opportunistic religionists, who have had often misled them by blaming others or the infidels for their own leadership inadequacy and failures in all human affairs of the modern times. The 9/11 attacks on the US notwithstanding, the world Islamic adverse reactions to the recent Danish cartoons were clearly agitated and manipulated by the imams, who were then too eager to show the world of their still “archaic and persistent mind control” power over the gullible Muslims!
Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today? With this understanding, we—as educated modern human beings; intellectually and spiritually; empathically and sympathetically—must now help the impoverished Muslims to reflect and introspect themselves—may be in a small way through this global forum in the Internet—if they were to realize and help themselves to adapt to this evermore dynamic zeitgeist of the 21st century and beyond. May be Salman Rushdie and other Islamic thinkers will provide a lead in this direction!
As for other religions, superstitions, metaphysics, such as, paganism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc; historically and presently, they are not as destructive as the monolithic monotheism as Christianity and Islam in nature; so, they would be able to adapt to the pluralistic 21st-century zeitgeist more easily and readily, so as to live and survive meaningfully on this diverse multicultural planet Earth!
...
Historically, once the organized superstitions and rituals became accepted—often times by force or coercion of the gullible—a consecrated or doctrinal religion was born; wherein the cultists now called monks or priests, would soon be able to wield enormous survival and spiritual power over their religious followers.
Specifically, by the influence of their survival successes during the hard times at the Middle East and Europe, both the followers (and converts) of Christianity and Islam have had been sheltered (as well as abused) by their religions since the 4th and 7th centuries, respectively.
In Christianity, we have witnessed the absolute power corrupted absolutely in the Catholic Church—as Martin Luther (1483-1546) dared to discover and expose with a good conscience!—whereas in Islam, most of the devout followers couldn’t (or even won’t) identify the fact that their own doctrinal belief-system could wield and have had indeed been wielding the absolute (sometimes abusive) power over them by their imams or mullahs—even today!
As such, the Muslim survival creativities, have had since been stumped by their own religion and opportunistic religionists, who have had often misled them by blaming others or the infidels for their own leadership inadequacy and failures in all human affairs of the modern times. The 9/11 attacks on the US notwithstanding, the world Islamic adverse reactions to the recent Danish cartoons were clearly agitated and manipulated by the imams, who were then too eager to show the world of their still “archaic and persistent mind control” power over the gullible Muslims!
Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today? With this understanding, we—as educated modern human beings; intellectually and spiritually; empathically and sympathetically—must now help the impoverished Muslims to reflect and introspect themselves—may be in a small way through this global forum in the Internet—if they were to realize and help themselves to adapt to this evermore dynamic zeitgeist of the 21st century and beyond. May be Salman Rushdie and other Islamic thinkers will provide a lead in this direction!
As for other religions, superstitions, metaphysics, such as, paganism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc; historically and presently, they are not as destructive as the monolithic monotheism as Christianity and Islam in nature; so, they would be able to adapt to the pluralistic 21st-century zeitgeist more easily and readily, so as to live and survive meaningfully on this diverse multicultural planet Earth!
...
It seems anytime too much power is placed in too few hands, this ends up as a focal point for corruption and people become seduced by power and then the sacrificing of individuals begins.
I don't encourage a forced redistribution to this, as this would be hypocritical and violate the intention of seeing a more peaceful and prosperous state exist, but I do encourage people to defend themselves and the value of their efforts and not be swayed or coerced into supporting or encouraging institutions that survive, not on their own merit, but by being forceful and destructively imposed on others.
I have nothing against religion itself and if a community desired to live according their own religious beliefs, that's fine. Even including things I might consider destructive to themselves. If they aren't holding people captive in this institution, then I won't claim to have an ability to impose my judgement on their beliefs, but their decisions can't justly extend to intruding into other communities without conflicts resulting. Ideally this concept should extend down to individuals, or at least family units as is natural when children are considered. Though realistically, some actions inevitably affect more than simply the person perfomring that action - dumping toxics into a river isn't an action solely up to individual discretion because this actions harms people outside that individual. If someone could pollute their own air and not have it harm others, they'd be free to do so, but this isn't the case in real life so obviously some form of government effectively exists on larger scales to resolve these disputes but I see this form of enforceable agreements as simply a reality that will always need to be addressed but not an ideal in need of being replicated whenever possible.
As usual, I tend to drift and ramble but again, thank you for posting this thread. Yes, I have some hope that there's a brighter future in store, but I also believe there will inevitably be costs paid getting there. If everyone suddenly had an insight tomorrow into what could be, things could change in a short time. There are few physical barriers in this regard, the limits are largely mental.
Hi Mong, StevenA,
StevenA, you have provided an example here, of a subjective 'reality'...
[/QUOTE]"When the United States was initially formed, there was much pride and love for the nation because it stood not for a nation only able to support a single culture but a creation that was simply a product of the mutual desires for independent colonies to defend their own independence."[QUOTE]
- There was a highly civilised culture already on the soil, using it sustainably and gratefully, before the white europeans destroyed all but the idea. To do this it was necessary to employ the use of African slaves; another culture 'raped'. I think any 'pride and love' must have been of an unconscious denial kind. Probably still is?
The whole point about 'Unity' is that we must RE-learn to see ourselves as not just 'One race', but also a part of 'One life on this planet' (maybe the only 'life' there is in existence!) and that doesn't mean that we all have to be or think exactly the same. It means we have to learn what 'acceptance' really is.
It should not be a problem to understand the One True Thing, and still accept that different people simply give 'it' different names.
It must start with the individual. And when an individual truely 'connects' with Reality, he or she then truely understands their own part within it. There is no option but to 'accept'.
'Reality' is the only common denominator we have! All else is personal perspective, and though sometimes fantastic, is mostly abused, to the detriment of anything 'other'.
Man has trouble accepting how tiny and insignificant he truely is, especially when he has been taught to believe that he is in some way 'superior'. A deeply humbling experience can show an individual exactly how 'significant' they are, in the face of Infinite Reality.
My concern is that Humanity will wait until it suffers a 'deeply humbling experience' of its own making, before it is motivated to do anything about it. This WILL happen, if we remain unconscious, or in denial of Reality...
[QUOTE]Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today?[/QUOTE]
- Mong, it's slow, but I think it is beginning to happen...
http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/taslima.htm
...can't keep a good spirit down!
regards,
Steve.
StevenA, you have provided an example here, of a subjective 'reality'...
[/QUOTE]"When the United States was initially formed, there was much pride and love for the nation because it stood not for a nation only able to support a single culture but a creation that was simply a product of the mutual desires for independent colonies to defend their own independence."[QUOTE]
- There was a highly civilised culture already on the soil, using it sustainably and gratefully, before the white europeans destroyed all but the idea. To do this it was necessary to employ the use of African slaves; another culture 'raped'. I think any 'pride and love' must have been of an unconscious denial kind. Probably still is?
The whole point about 'Unity' is that we must RE-learn to see ourselves as not just 'One race', but also a part of 'One life on this planet' (maybe the only 'life' there is in existence!) and that doesn't mean that we all have to be or think exactly the same. It means we have to learn what 'acceptance' really is.
It should not be a problem to understand the One True Thing, and still accept that different people simply give 'it' different names.
It must start with the individual. And when an individual truely 'connects' with Reality, he or she then truely understands their own part within it. There is no option but to 'accept'.
'Reality' is the only common denominator we have! All else is personal perspective, and though sometimes fantastic, is mostly abused, to the detriment of anything 'other'.
Man has trouble accepting how tiny and insignificant he truely is, especially when he has been taught to believe that he is in some way 'superior'. A deeply humbling experience can show an individual exactly how 'significant' they are, in the face of Infinite Reality.
My concern is that Humanity will wait until it suffers a 'deeply humbling experience' of its own making, before it is motivated to do anything about it. This WILL happen, if we remain unconscious, or in denial of Reality...
[QUOTE]Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today?[/QUOTE]
- Mong, it's slow, but I think it is beginning to happen...
http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/taslima.htm
...can't keep a good spirit down!
regards,
Steve.
QUOTE
The whole point about 'Unity' is that we must RE-learn to see ourselves as not just 'One race', but also a part of 'One life on this planet' (maybe the only 'life' there is in existence!) and that doesn't mean that we all have to be or think exactly the same. It means we have to learn what 'acceptance' really is.
Yup. Exactly. We all want to live a life that is our own. But we cannot. Because we only have one home and we live together with a billion people some of them are even like us. And to be able to live, we must consider each other too because the people we're living with is a very important factor. They can bring you either failure or success. Sometimes, those two depends on them completely.
So, the most important thing to do is to unite. Have one goal. Be one. This world is composed of one big happy family living together, experiencing things, going to different directions, but at the end, they will realize only one great thing.
But the sad thing is....we can't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The whole point about 'Unity' is that we must RE-learn to see ourselves as not just 'One race', but also a part of 'One life on this planet' (maybe the only 'life' there is in existence!) and that doesn't mean that we all have to be or think exactly the same. It means we have to learn what 'acceptance' really is. |
Yup. Exactly. We all want to live a life that is our own. But we cannot. Because we only have one home and we live together with a billion people some of them are even like us. And to be able to live, we must consider each other too because the people we're living with is a very important factor. They can bring you either failure or success. Sometimes, those two depends on them completely.
So, the most important thing to do is to unite. Have one goal. Be one. This world is composed of one big happy family living together, experiencing things, going to different directions, but at the end, they will realize only one great thing.
But the sad thing is....we can't.
The terms "Global", "Humanity", "Unity" and "Oneness" etc. are mental simplifications of reality. Yes, humanity exists, but not as a single entity with a single purpose or desire.
Yup. We can't just exist as one. That's why war happens. Points of view came flying around, attacking their opponent side by side. But that doesn't mean that peace on earth will be impossible. We can live in peace even though we go to different directions.
I hope we can...
Peace on earth
[QUOTE=howtothinklikegod,May 8 2006, 06:30 PM][QUOTE]
So, the most important thing to do is to unite. Have one goal. Be one. This world is composed of one big happy family living together, experiencing things, going to different directions, but at the end, they will realize only one great thing.
But the sad thing is....we can't.
[QUOTE]
Hi howtothinklikegod,
My friend, the absolute saddest thing of all is that we CAN, but we just let others make us believe we can't....
- "Be the change you wish to see in the world" - M.K.Gandhi
- "A true measure of stagnation is when you are given an opportunity to further life, but fail to do so." - Mr. Lemniscate
steve.
So, the most important thing to do is to unite. Have one goal. Be one. This world is composed of one big happy family living together, experiencing things, going to different directions, but at the end, they will realize only one great thing.
But the sad thing is....we can't.
[QUOTE]
Hi howtothinklikegod,
My friend, the absolute saddest thing of all is that we CAN, but we just let others make us believe we can't....
- "Be the change you wish to see in the world" - M.K.Gandhi
- "A true measure of stagnation is when you are given an opportunity to further life, but fail to do so." - Mr. Lemniscate
steve.
QUOTE (howtothinklikegod+May 8 2006, 06:30 PM)
QUOTE
The terms "Global", "Humanity", "Unity" and "Oneness" etc. are mental simplifications of reality. Yes, humanity exists, but not as a single entity with a single purpose or desire.
Yup. We can't just exist as one. That's why war happens. Points of view came flying around, attacking their opponent side by side. But that doesn't mean that peace on earth will be impossible. We can live in peace even though we go to different directions.
I hope we can...
Peace on earth
I agree with you and believe these ideas are "memes" that will ultimately shift things in that direction.
People inevitably benefit from being part of a community, but paradoxically when this synergy is attempted forcefully, the clenched fist finds grains of sand slipping out from between the fingers. Whereas, it's difficult to turn down a relationship with others that has few costs and is viewed as mutually beneficial.
You can find many private organizations that arise, not out of coercion, or legal mandates etc but simply individual desires to be a part of that association. Though it may not be the best example, the Catholic church, for example is a worldwide organization that exists at least for the most part today from the voluntary desires of millions of people to be a part of it. There was no need for demarkating national boundaries and no police enforced attendance etc. Though some incidents in history have likely occured contrary to this, I'm only referring to the voluntary private aspects of it today.
Some people might say my comment regarding there not being a need to demarkate national boundaries for these to exist is in support of communistic ideals, but that's not the case. Capitalism doesn't require everyone to be part of different nations either, and is simply based upon individual rights, not national ones (which seem to often ignore individual ones).
Anyway, I truly don't want to sidetrack this thread with political details. There's little need for the large majority of social conflicts that are occuring today once people recognize the fact that not being denied control over your own life is 100 times as valuable as being able to deny others their freedom to do the same. The major social problem stopping this is that too many people feel entitled to control foreign affairs in other nations, or decide what healthcare people in other states are allowed or even what the neighbor watches on television in the privacy of their own home, and what subjects their children should be taught/indoctrinated into.
In one way, these sadly create a fracturing in society and conflicts that seem to never be resolved but on the other hand it's also a force that appears to be awakening people to more than simply the detailed conflicts but the larger social issue underlying all of it.
I have a feeling there will be a greater sense of global unity in the future, but it will come from a bottom up appreciation of the many relationships we experience and value, and a desire to continue these, as opposed to a top-down mandate to act as one.
Peace to you also
What is Science looking for? I mean, what does it hope to find eventually, ultimately? Where is it heading? And why does it want to know?
We can ask all these questions of Religion also. And we can do that because they have a common ground between them. They are both Human in origin. They both need to know.
The reconciliation is about finding this 'common ground'. It is about understanding ourselves, as individuals firstly, then as part of our 'families', our 'communities', our 'cultures', our 'races', our 'Humanity', our 'species'. At which point we discover that we are also part of a bigger picture. We are part of the animal 'world', and having discovered that, we see that the 'picture' keeps getting bigger and bigger the further you step back. We are a part of 'organic life'. We are a part of the whole of 'Life'. At this point we can clearly see that we are simply another part of the Earth. The Earth is a part of the solar system. The solar system is part of the milky way galaxy. The galaxy is part of the Universe.
'Common ground' stretches from the tiniest thing to the largest thing.
Science also looks the 'other' way. It attempts to see the smallest thing possible. This is a thing that Religion neglected to do; concentrating on the 'almighty' only. What about the 'all-tiny'?
'Science' exposes 'Religion's' weaknesses. But 'Religion' also exposes 'Science's' weaknesses, as 'science' neglects its 'intuition', which is, after all, its true link to its one true origin, and so they both regard each other as a threat. Both afraid to be exposed to the reality that they simply do not know what they claim to know.
A uniting of the intuitive with the physically obvious is the reconciliation. And it starts with our personal understanding.
We gather the 'information' and pick our personal perspective of 'Truth' from it. But we can only correctly determine what the 'Truth' is when we know how to see 'Truth', and not just someone elses idea of what it should be. Therefore we can only truely trust our own interpretations, and we must know, without a doubt, that our intuition is correct, which also means that we must know ourselves, and accept the 'bad' as well as the 'good'; accept that we don't 'know it all'; accept that we ALL have much to learn.
'Science' will never find any 'truth' while it denies half of Reality, and neither will 'Religion'. The acceptance of Reality must always include everything, otherwise it cannot consider its findings complete.
I am aware that this sounds 'arrogant' to someone who has already decided 'which side' they are on. I oppose neither 'science', nor 'religion'. Neither do I promote 'intelligent design', or 'new age mysticism'. I am interested in Reality only. One Thing, whatever you care to call it. I have no 'agenda'. Nothing to sell, except this idea. And nobody is paying me to express it.
I think it's time we ALL ushered in the age of REALISM... While we still have an 'age' at all...
Steve.
We can ask all these questions of Religion also. And we can do that because they have a common ground between them. They are both Human in origin. They both need to know.
The reconciliation is about finding this 'common ground'. It is about understanding ourselves, as individuals firstly, then as part of our 'families', our 'communities', our 'cultures', our 'races', our 'Humanity', our 'species'. At which point we discover that we are also part of a bigger picture. We are part of the animal 'world', and having discovered that, we see that the 'picture' keeps getting bigger and bigger the further you step back. We are a part of 'organic life'. We are a part of the whole of 'Life'. At this point we can clearly see that we are simply another part of the Earth. The Earth is a part of the solar system. The solar system is part of the milky way galaxy. The galaxy is part of the Universe.
'Common ground' stretches from the tiniest thing to the largest thing.
Science also looks the 'other' way. It attempts to see the smallest thing possible. This is a thing that Religion neglected to do; concentrating on the 'almighty' only. What about the 'all-tiny'?
'Science' exposes 'Religion's' weaknesses. But 'Religion' also exposes 'Science's' weaknesses, as 'science' neglects its 'intuition', which is, after all, its true link to its one true origin, and so they both regard each other as a threat. Both afraid to be exposed to the reality that they simply do not know what they claim to know.
A uniting of the intuitive with the physically obvious is the reconciliation. And it starts with our personal understanding.
We gather the 'information' and pick our personal perspective of 'Truth' from it. But we can only correctly determine what the 'Truth' is when we know how to see 'Truth', and not just someone elses idea of what it should be. Therefore we can only truely trust our own interpretations, and we must know, without a doubt, that our intuition is correct, which also means that we must know ourselves, and accept the 'bad' as well as the 'good'; accept that we don't 'know it all'; accept that we ALL have much to learn.
'Science' will never find any 'truth' while it denies half of Reality, and neither will 'Religion'. The acceptance of Reality must always include everything, otherwise it cannot consider its findings complete.
I am aware that this sounds 'arrogant' to someone who has already decided 'which side' they are on. I oppose neither 'science', nor 'religion'. Neither do I promote 'intelligent design', or 'new age mysticism'. I am interested in Reality only. One Thing, whatever you care to call it. I have no 'agenda'. Nothing to sell, except this idea. And nobody is paying me to express it.
I think it's time we ALL ushered in the age of REALISM... While we still have an 'age' at all...
Steve.
QUOTE (Knot of this world+)
Science also looks the 'other' way. It attempts to see the smallest thing possible. This is a thing that Religion neglected to do; concentrating on the 'almighty' only. What about the 'all-tiny'?
'Science' exposes 'Religion's' weaknesses. But 'Religion' also exposes 'Science's' weaknesses, as 'science' neglects its 'intuition', which is, after all, its true link to its one true origin, and so they both regard each other as a threat. Both afraid to be exposed to the reality that they simply do not know what they claim to know.
This is an interesting perspective.
There do seem to be two opposing forces that at least in many people desire to find a common direction to go in order to resolve the conflict. On the one hand people desire change, or to be more than what they are currently, but they don't want this to alter their own identity into something that they aren't a part of. People want to grow, unite or otherwise empower themselves and I believe this correlates similar to an evolutionary natural pressure to survive. Whereas, on the other hand this apparent necessity for change is feared in that someone will lose themselves to it and be uncontrollable carried away or left behind. This is also a desire to survive, though it's more of a pressure to not be consumed by outside forces and a desire to remain distinct and retain a continuous sense of self in the process.
To rephrase it, we desire to exist, yet desire to become something else as well. Science deals more with understanding and defining our current existance, whereas religions tend to pursue the desires to become something else/more. Finding out how to achieve these desires while maintaining an existance, or to achieve and become a part of what you desire, while still maintaining a sense of yourself and personal accomplishment during the process is at least one of the conflicts.
There are likely many other analogies of this. For example, we can benefit from being part of a society and generally desire to do so, but we don't want this society to consume us and deprive us of independence in the process, or people many people may have a desire to alter the Earth in some fashion perceived as better, but fear living in a world that's altered by others beyond their control, or people wish to alter a career path but fear the unknowns to this change. People want to go to heaven but fear death etc.
Is this simply a simultaneous desire for change yet fear of possible unknowns and unintended consequences? Maybe on a larger scale, humanity takes larger steps when the desires are greatest and the fear of unknowns are smallest? Religions tend to work with leaps of faith more, and science prefers baby steps. Merging the two, maybe science can remove the faith component of making larger leaps?
(I'm just rambling as usual)
'Science' exposes 'Religion's' weaknesses. But 'Religion' also exposes 'Science's' weaknesses, as 'science' neglects its 'intuition', which is, after all, its true link to its one true origin, and so they both regard each other as a threat. Both afraid to be exposed to the reality that they simply do not know what they claim to know.
This is an interesting perspective.
There do seem to be two opposing forces that at least in many people desire to find a common direction to go in order to resolve the conflict. On the one hand people desire change, or to be more than what they are currently, but they don't want this to alter their own identity into something that they aren't a part of. People want to grow, unite or otherwise empower themselves and I believe this correlates similar to an evolutionary natural pressure to survive. Whereas, on the other hand this apparent necessity for change is feared in that someone will lose themselves to it and be uncontrollable carried away or left behind. This is also a desire to survive, though it's more of a pressure to not be consumed by outside forces and a desire to remain distinct and retain a continuous sense of self in the process.
To rephrase it, we desire to exist, yet desire to become something else as well. Science deals more with understanding and defining our current existance, whereas religions tend to pursue the desires to become something else/more. Finding out how to achieve these desires while maintaining an existance, or to achieve and become a part of what you desire, while still maintaining a sense of yourself and personal accomplishment during the process is at least one of the conflicts.
There are likely many other analogies of this. For example, we can benefit from being part of a society and generally desire to do so, but we don't want this society to consume us and deprive us of independence in the process, or people many people may have a desire to alter the Earth in some fashion perceived as better, but fear living in a world that's altered by others beyond their control, or people wish to alter a career path but fear the unknowns to this change. People want to go to heaven but fear death etc.
Is this simply a simultaneous desire for change yet fear of possible unknowns and unintended consequences? Maybe on a larger scale, humanity takes larger steps when the desires are greatest and the fear of unknowns are smallest? Religions tend to work with leaps of faith more, and science prefers baby steps. Merging the two, maybe science can remove the faith component of making larger leaps?
(I'm just rambling as usual)
QUOTE
My friend, the absolute saddest thing of all is that we CAN, but we just let others make us believe we can't....
We can't knotofthisworld. We cannot. We cannot be one. We cannot have one goal. We cannot.
I know that seems hard to accept but why drown yourself in total fantasy while living in a world of reality?? But yes, maybe we can. I want to keep an open mind. Maybe, we can. But not now. Now, there's a lot of chaos going on. But again, that's the time when people realize the importance of having peace.
Okay, so let's not limit ourselves to that. There's hope. Thanks, knotofthisworld. Thanks for still believing...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My friend, the absolute saddest thing of all is that we CAN, but we just let others make us believe we can't.... |
We can't knotofthisworld. We cannot. We cannot be one. We cannot have one goal. We cannot.
I know that seems hard to accept but why drown yourself in total fantasy while living in a world of reality?? But yes, maybe we can. I want to keep an open mind. Maybe, we can. But not now. Now, there's a lot of chaos going on. But again, that's the time when people realize the importance of having peace.
Okay, so let's not limit ourselves to that. There's hope. Thanks, knotofthisworld. Thanks for still believing...
Science also looks the 'other' way. It attempts to see the smallest thing possible. This is a thing that Religion neglected to do; concentrating on the 'almighty' only. What about the 'all-tiny'?
You already said that science exposes religion's weaknesses and vice-versa. So now, don't blame religion for focusing on the all-tiny. Anyways, that's the job of science. So science if for the all-tiny. And religion is for the almighty.
QUOTE
I think it's time we ALL ushered in the age of REALISM... While we still have an 'age' at all...
Yup. I guess it's the time. But with people who cares only about themselves and people who won't give a damn, I'm sure it will take a long time. We just have to wait. Like you said, while we still have the time.
QUOTE (Knot of this world+May 8 2006, 10:34 AM)
It must start with the individual. And when an individual truely 'connects' with Reality, he or she then truely understands their own part within it. There is no option but to 'accept'.
My concern is that Humanity will wait until it suffers a 'deeply humbling experience' of its own making, before it is motivated to do anything about it. This WILL happen, if we remain unconscious, or in denial of Reality...
Hiall, such a nice thread,
Knot, you are very wise. The Old Testament is a chronology of a very slow and tedious process of basically 'single' people attempting to raise the conscience and wisdom of an entire citizenry, using merely what little they had at their disposal - the concrete events of their time, and their own 'inspiration' - to inject new, untested abstract ideas to effect positive outcomes; outcomes which took longer to complete and enjoyed little initial support (persons are generally more impatient en masse than individually) as a 'cure' rather than the quicker 'suppressant'. This model showed the giant amount of time required for even modest success.
A single person cannot effectively raise the wisdom/awareness of the species. But a single person can raise it for themself, and through a bit of human osmosis, to some extent those around them. If enough people achieve this lofty mental state, the concurrent synergy of the species is automatically employed; in time, if we manage to continue, this natural synergy, so weak at the outset, becomes, like gravity, an overwhelming force, but spreading outward selflessly rather than crushing in selfishly. An idea gains strength and becomes legion as it is given away, and this snowballing effect will propel us to finally start learning how to touch the Face of Reality. And the basing of entire belief systems on discreet parts of the 'hidden whole' will necessarily fall away as knowledge erases perception.
This is a good lesson to learn. It demonstrates that we need each other, and indicates that unity, not seperateness, may not only be our outcome, but our heritage too.
Humanity works from a Phoenix mentality, due to apathy, complacency, laziness, weakness, envy, the sacrifice of the common good for self-gain, etc. All these attributes are selfish and crush inward, inevitably dragging us to the necessary 'humbling experience' and then we become Monday morning quarterbacks in our assessments. Of course we could have that asteroid hit, or the behemoth natural disaster do similar. But pie-in-the-sky is not staring us straight in the face, we are. And to our betterment, yes indeed "this WILL happen". No matter what, evolution progresses. It has crests and troughs, but in viewing it from as entire a perspective as we can, we can safely say that de-evolution does not exist. The Universe - the One Song - continues unassailed, and we with it.
joe
My concern is that Humanity will wait until it suffers a 'deeply humbling experience' of its own making, before it is motivated to do anything about it. This WILL happen, if we remain unconscious, or in denial of Reality...
Hiall, such a nice thread,
Knot, you are very wise. The Old Testament is a chronology of a very slow and tedious process of basically 'single' people attempting to raise the conscience and wisdom of an entire citizenry, using merely what little they had at their disposal - the concrete events of their time, and their own 'inspiration' - to inject new, untested abstract ideas to effect positive outcomes; outcomes which took longer to complete and enjoyed little initial support (persons are generally more impatient en masse than individually) as a 'cure' rather than the quicker 'suppressant'. This model showed the giant amount of time required for even modest success.
A single person cannot effectively raise the wisdom/awareness of the species. But a single person can raise it for themself, and through a bit of human osmosis, to some extent those around them. If enough people achieve this lofty mental state, the concurrent synergy of the species is automatically employed; in time, if we manage to continue, this natural synergy, so weak at the outset, becomes, like gravity, an overwhelming force, but spreading outward selflessly rather than crushing in selfishly. An idea gains strength and becomes legion as it is given away, and this snowballing effect will propel us to finally start learning how to touch the Face of Reality. And the basing of entire belief systems on discreet parts of the 'hidden whole' will necessarily fall away as knowledge erases perception.
This is a good lesson to learn. It demonstrates that we need each other, and indicates that unity, not seperateness, may not only be our outcome, but our heritage too.
Humanity works from a Phoenix mentality, due to apathy, complacency, laziness, weakness, envy, the sacrifice of the common good for self-gain, etc. All these attributes are selfish and crush inward, inevitably dragging us to the necessary 'humbling experience' and then we become Monday morning quarterbacks in our assessments. Of course we could have that asteroid hit, or the behemoth natural disaster do similar. But pie-in-the-sky is not staring us straight in the face, we are. And to our betterment, yes indeed "this WILL happen". No matter what, evolution progresses. It has crests and troughs, but in viewing it from as entire a perspective as we can, we can safely say that de-evolution does not exist. The Universe - the One Song - continues unassailed, and we with it.
joe
Welcome jaybee,
I thought you don't want the creation/evolution forum. Anyways, I hope you like it here...
Congratulations to knot. He's such a very talented man.
You should keep it up, bro!
Peace
I thought you don't want the creation/evolution forum. Anyways, I hope you like it here...
Congratulations to knot. He's such a very talented man.
You should keep it up, bro!
Peace
Yes that is basically true httlg, but anywhere I see StevenA posting I know it's a good read; he's probably my favorite poster, Good Elf not far behind. And Knotofthisworld is a perfect accompaniment to this discussion and new and welcome to me. My 'perceptions' are changing!
I think trust is what's needed most. If people are to work together, they need to have a certain level of confidence in others. Obviously trust involves some risks. It's an investment with uncertainties. But when the returns appear good enough relative to the alternatives, and the costs and risks are limited these investments in humanity will be made. There was a time when people had little choice but to trust their neighbors and society was adapted to work efficiently in small communities. But since then maintaining this sense of community has become more of a challenge. We all still have dependencies on others but this has become more diffused.
In some ways this "public" dependency is artificially imposed and this is destructive to the natural relationships that would otherwise exist ... for example, if a social program is going to take care of you no matter how you interact with friends, family or others in your immediate neighborhood, then the natural incentive people have to foster such relationships is dimished and families and neighborhoods fracture destructively because of this unnatural pressure to maintain control of a social structure larger than we're innately adept at interacting with and understanding. This also obscures how our actions affect things as it's distributed, more convoluted and less visible. Also, it's more difficult to overcome social inertia and these efforts provide less individual benefit, and though they may be valuable on a larger scale, again it's not simply determining whether the effort had the desired result.
If people want to see large swaths of humanity united behind some ideals, they need to sit down and look at what issues truly need to be addressed at this level and what would motivate people to be attracted to this. If individuals can either do something similar without a need for large numbers of other people to do it also, or if there's little individual benefit to receive then the motivation won't be there.
Of course peace and avoiding destructive conflicts has been a recurring desire throughout history. Sometimes conflicts are unavoidable, but this is actually very very rare. In many ways, hundreds of years, there was physically no ability for conflicts to exist between most areas of the world as people could only interact locally and likely even had little of any knowledge of what existed elsewhere. Now, with global forms of communication and the ability to travel around the world, our perspectives have widened but our bodies and minds are still human and in exchange for this, we've lost sight of the details and traded off a recognition and control over our immediate environments to monitoring and controlling environments we may never even spend a single day living in. Of course, this phenomenon goes both ways and results in large scale unnecessary conflicts over issues that have little of any impact on the people trying to make the decisions, which leaves everyone feeling molded by society and disempowered to change things because of the apparent monumental undertaking it would require to change the world.
But there are weaknesses to this system and nature doesn't tolerate stagnation and conflict for long, and the question is largely whether individual desires for freedom and independence in controlling their own destinies, can be harmoniously balanced with assuring a responsibilty is present, for how those decisions affect others. Democracy isn't about voting and majority rule, it's about empowering individuals to determine their own destinies. Justice is about limiting the inevitable conflicts that occur along the way, and promoting responsibility for ones actions. Equality shouldn't be seen as making everyone live a similar life, or otherwise trying to mold people into some "ideal" average, it's about granting an equal respect and protection against unjustified aggressions to everyone without regard to greed or envy. This doesn't mean all people will have similar capabilities in all areas or experience a similar resulting satisfaction to their decisions, but it does mean that the lives, abilities, means and desires of people are respected and mutually defended. If you don't want to have your home taken from you, then theft, whether it be a dollar from a poor man or a car from a rich man should be discouraged. Or if you would desire to have personal relationships with others, or a spouse and family then you must accept that others will have these same desires that need a mutual respect but of course when things like marriage laws exist that remove the definitions of these from individual decision, then arguments over who and how many can be married, and how this affects citizenship status, taxes and liability etc. begin to erupt, when all along individuals were perfectly able to decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is, and in what manner, if any, this deserves some special treatment.
In some ways this "public" dependency is artificially imposed and this is destructive to the natural relationships that would otherwise exist ... for example, if a social program is going to take care of you no matter how you interact with friends, family or others in your immediate neighborhood, then the natural incentive people have to foster such relationships is dimished and families and neighborhoods fracture destructively because of this unnatural pressure to maintain control of a social structure larger than we're innately adept at interacting with and understanding. This also obscures how our actions affect things as it's distributed, more convoluted and less visible. Also, it's more difficult to overcome social inertia and these efforts provide less individual benefit, and though they may be valuable on a larger scale, again it's not simply determining whether the effort had the desired result.
If people want to see large swaths of humanity united behind some ideals, they need to sit down and look at what issues truly need to be addressed at this level and what would motivate people to be attracted to this. If individuals can either do something similar without a need for large numbers of other people to do it also, or if there's little individual benefit to receive then the motivation won't be there.
Of course peace and avoiding destructive conflicts has been a recurring desire throughout history. Sometimes conflicts are unavoidable, but this is actually very very rare. In many ways, hundreds of years, there was physically no ability for conflicts to exist between most areas of the world as people could only interact locally and likely even had little of any knowledge of what existed elsewhere. Now, with global forms of communication and the ability to travel around the world, our perspectives have widened but our bodies and minds are still human and in exchange for this, we've lost sight of the details and traded off a recognition and control over our immediate environments to monitoring and controlling environments we may never even spend a single day living in. Of course, this phenomenon goes both ways and results in large scale unnecessary conflicts over issues that have little of any impact on the people trying to make the decisions, which leaves everyone feeling molded by society and disempowered to change things because of the apparent monumental undertaking it would require to change the world.
But there are weaknesses to this system and nature doesn't tolerate stagnation and conflict for long, and the question is largely whether individual desires for freedom and independence in controlling their own destinies, can be harmoniously balanced with assuring a responsibilty is present, for how those decisions affect others. Democracy isn't about voting and majority rule, it's about empowering individuals to determine their own destinies. Justice is about limiting the inevitable conflicts that occur along the way, and promoting responsibility for ones actions. Equality shouldn't be seen as making everyone live a similar life, or otherwise trying to mold people into some "ideal" average, it's about granting an equal respect and protection against unjustified aggressions to everyone without regard to greed or envy. This doesn't mean all people will have similar capabilities in all areas or experience a similar resulting satisfaction to their decisions, but it does mean that the lives, abilities, means and desires of people are respected and mutually defended. If you don't want to have your home taken from you, then theft, whether it be a dollar from a poor man or a car from a rich man should be discouraged. Or if you would desire to have personal relationships with others, or a spouse and family then you must accept that others will have these same desires that need a mutual respect but of course when things like marriage laws exist that remove the definitions of these from individual decision, then arguments over who and how many can be married, and how this affects citizenship status, taxes and liability etc. begin to erupt, when all along individuals were perfectly able to decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is, and in what manner, if any, this deserves some special treatment.
QUOTE (Soundhertz+)
A single person cannot effectively raise the wisdom/awareness of the species. But a single person can raise it for themself, and through a bit of human osmosis, to some extent those around them. If enough people achieve this lofty mental state, the concurrent synergy of the species is automatically employed; in time, if we manage to continue, this natural synergy, so weak at the outset, becomes, like gravity, an overwhelming force, but spreading outward selflessly rather than crushing in selfishly.
Exactly how I see it also. If you want to effect a social change (maybe too many of us are trying to do this?), you don't really have to 'win' a discussion but simply present some ideas that stick. It might even be an idea that initially appears annoying and causes discomfort to the person hearing it and you'd assume they'd prefer to forget about it but just like dreams tend to be a rehash of concerns or thoughts we have, but in chaotic ways, simply presenting a perspective that stands out and is worthy of mulling over in the mind tends to move people in the direction they're looking. Media tends to use volume as a distraction but ultimately content wins out because it grows in significance. You don't need to change the world. You can simply swap a few good ideas in a small group and if there's enough merit to an idea, the concept takes wings from there. If it doesn't, and you want it to, then you have to go back to the drawing board and find the fault.
In some ways this "public" dependency is artificially imposed and this is destructive to the natural relationships that would otherwise exist ... for example, if a social program is going to take care of you no matter how you interact with friends, family or others in your immediate neighborhood, then the natural incentive people have to foster such relationships is dimished and families and neighborhoods fracture destructively because of this unnatural pressure to maintain control of a social structure larger than we're innately adept at interacting with and understanding.
Hence the 'centralization of social control' you mentioned elsewhere. I believe that the longer and more vigorously we suckle the poisoned breast of government will the difficulty in the inevitable weaning proportionately be.
All the more reason for wise persons to step to the plate afforded them in their sphere and swing that bat!
And you're quite welcome sir.
Exactly how I see it also. If you want to effect a social change (maybe too many of us are trying to do this?), you don't really have to 'win' a discussion but simply present some ideas that stick. It might even be an idea that initially appears annoying and causes discomfort to the person hearing it and you'd assume they'd prefer to forget about it but just like dreams tend to be a rehash of concerns or thoughts we have, but in chaotic ways, simply presenting a perspective that stands out and is worthy of mulling over in the mind tends to move people in the direction they're looking. Media tends to use volume as a distraction but ultimately content wins out because it grows in significance. You don't need to change the world. You can simply swap a few good ideas in a small group and if there's enough merit to an idea, the concept takes wings from there. If it doesn't, and you want it to, then you have to go back to the drawing board and find the fault.
QUOTE (Soundhertz+)
Yes that is basically true httlg, but anywhere I see StevenA posting I know it's a good read; he's probably my favorite poster, Good Elf not far behind. And Knotofthisworld is a perfect accompaniment to this discussion and new and welcome to me. My 'perceptions' are changing!
Wow, thank you much, Sound
Of course not everyone sees things the same way, but I think that's the best compliment I've heard in years and yes, I agree that GoodElf has great posts also.
Wow, thank you much, Sound
Of course not everyone sees things the same way, but I think that's the best compliment I've heard in years and yes, I agree that GoodElf has great posts also.
QUOTE (StevenA+May 9 2006, 11:49 PM)
In some ways this "public" dependency is artificially imposed and this is destructive to the natural relationships that would otherwise exist ... for example, if a social program is going to take care of you no matter how you interact with friends, family or others in your immediate neighborhood, then the natural incentive people have to foster such relationships is dimished and families and neighborhoods fracture destructively because of this unnatural pressure to maintain control of a social structure larger than we're innately adept at interacting with and understanding.
Hence the 'centralization of social control' you mentioned elsewhere. I believe that the longer and more vigorously we suckle the poisoned breast of government will the difficulty in the inevitable weaning proportionately be.
All the more reason for wise persons to step to the plate afforded them in their sphere and swing that bat!
And you're quite welcome sir.
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 10 2006, 03:32 AM)
Hence the 'centralization of social control' you mentioned elsewhere. I believe that the longer and more vigorously we suckle the poisoned breast of government will the difficulty in the inevitable weaning proportionately be.
Yes, they grab both teats. Siphon off the cream. Place half back in a latex nipple, and then expect to be congratulated on feeding the hungry children. Maybe this is exactly why many of the children were hungry in the first place.
I have nothing against governments and institutions that are created from generally non-coercive, voluntary desires, but if you decide to build your own home on land noone else had any interest in and some guys with guns come by and want to take a recurring percent of this every year, that's something you'd expect a government to defend against, not instigate. I recognize there are costs to maintaining peace in a society and realize you can't squeeze juice out of a turnip, but putting the burden largely on those who're law abiding, productive and promoting the peace is a mistake as it will only discourage this support. If being good means coming in last, there's a limit to many times people will sacrifice their interests to losses.
Every other special special interest group in the world gets their day in a parade with media coverage. I recognize the damage it would do but I admit hoping that there's a Joe Schmo day where those paying the bills would finally show who needs who and who's paying for these various parties and being forced to accept an effectively counterfeit currency, legally forced to trade real labor for paper created without any value backing it (Federal Reserve), except the avoidance of pain (IRS), or kicked off their land via. political decree (emminent domain) or has been pressured via. taxes to have their children indoctrinated into beliefs that oppose their interests via. public education (enforced taxation for public education, and denying fair private competition) or been coerced out of using their full abilities via government enforced monopolies or been subjugated to legal discrimination simply because of their race (you'd think after the 70s we'd have a color blind legal system, but no, there are still racial and sexual preferences legally imposed), or the people unable to afford a home because their taxes are paying for someone else to live in them, or those living in smaller homes than those who qualify for Section 8 housing, or those unable to retire decently because they've been paying 15.3% of their income to Social Security in exchange for having most this wealth not invested but spent on the lastest political whims etc. etc. etc.
We've been seduced by the ideas of a magic genie government that exists somehow outside ourselves and can produce things we don't have to create or pay for and keeps benevolent watch over everything. The reality is there's only us and this mentality simply deprives people of their own ability to resolve things and instead expects others to tell us how to resolve these, with the trackrecord indicating this power is often abused also. You can't point to anything physical and say that's government or society. There is no tangible government, only individuals. If someone pulls you off the road, has a gun and demands $100. Does a badge and the excuse that it's because you're not wearing a seatbelt really change much of anything? Is this some preemptive action to stop your body from flying out of the car and hitting someone or is it like China where you can't have freedom over your own safety because others because "society" will be expected to pay the medical bills? In a society that's expected to raise your children, guess who also decides whether or not they can even afford to let you have one?
Instead, if you want to add a room to your home and none of the neighbors have a problem with it, you shouldn't need to ask permission and pay off various government representatives. Simply because someone claims to represent something, if you don't even know the person, how can you verify you even gave the guy any authority to determine some issue for you? If there's a dispute, that's what the justice system is for. I don't recommend people go around suing and taking everyone to court, and likely there are problems with the justice system but English Common Law and trial by jury etc. has been an excellent foundation of justice for a long time and places people, legally on very similar footing (though the ideas of jury selection and allowing judges a large amount of control over evidence etc. are also issues).
As usual, I'm not exactly on topic and ramble. But these issues obviously do pertain to many of the political and social conflicts that exist. In many ways this may be simply the current round of ongoing struggles humanity has always faced and I recognize that positive results are also being seen. Changes will come and ultimately I have confidence that the truths and realities will win out. Out of all the attempts at tyranny around the world, not a single one endures for long. A cancer can grow but it must constantly spread and syphon off the life of healthy cells to remain alive. Whether or not this cancer is isolated, and expected to live on its own merit or not, ultimately the same result is reached. The only question is how much is lost along the way. (Sadly none of these damages can truly be undone, though the learning process may be necessary and inevitable ... it just sucks, on occasion, to be trapped in a "democracy" with slow learners but maybe that's also inevitable to an extend something we all experience in various ways at different times. We all have different strengths and do what we can in our own ways, and I guess that must be accepted as good enough if you're going to rely on the help of others to effect changes)
Yes, they grab both teats. Siphon off the cream. Place half back in a latex nipple, and then expect to be congratulated on feeding the hungry children. Maybe this is exactly why many of the children were hungry in the first place.
I have nothing against governments and institutions that are created from generally non-coercive, voluntary desires, but if you decide to build your own home on land noone else had any interest in and some guys with guns come by and want to take a recurring percent of this every year, that's something you'd expect a government to defend against, not instigate. I recognize there are costs to maintaining peace in a society and realize you can't squeeze juice out of a turnip, but putting the burden largely on those who're law abiding, productive and promoting the peace is a mistake as it will only discourage this support. If being good means coming in last, there's a limit to many times people will sacrifice their interests to losses.
Every other special special interest group in the world gets their day in a parade with media coverage. I recognize the damage it would do but I admit hoping that there's a Joe Schmo day where those paying the bills would finally show who needs who and who's paying for these various parties and being forced to accept an effectively counterfeit currency, legally forced to trade real labor for paper created without any value backing it (Federal Reserve), except the avoidance of pain (IRS), or kicked off their land via. political decree (emminent domain) or has been pressured via. taxes to have their children indoctrinated into beliefs that oppose their interests via. public education (enforced taxation for public education, and denying fair private competition) or been coerced out of using their full abilities via government enforced monopolies or been subjugated to legal discrimination simply because of their race (you'd think after the 70s we'd have a color blind legal system, but no, there are still racial and sexual preferences legally imposed), or the people unable to afford a home because their taxes are paying for someone else to live in them, or those living in smaller homes than those who qualify for Section 8 housing, or those unable to retire decently because they've been paying 15.3% of their income to Social Security in exchange for having most this wealth not invested but spent on the lastest political whims etc. etc. etc.
We've been seduced by the ideas of a magic genie government that exists somehow outside ourselves and can produce things we don't have to create or pay for and keeps benevolent watch over everything. The reality is there's only us and this mentality simply deprives people of their own ability to resolve things and instead expects others to tell us how to resolve these, with the trackrecord indicating this power is often abused also. You can't point to anything physical and say that's government or society. There is no tangible government, only individuals. If someone pulls you off the road, has a gun and demands $100. Does a badge and the excuse that it's because you're not wearing a seatbelt really change much of anything? Is this some preemptive action to stop your body from flying out of the car and hitting someone or is it like China where you can't have freedom over your own safety because others because "society" will be expected to pay the medical bills? In a society that's expected to raise your children, guess who also decides whether or not they can even afford to let you have one?
Instead, if you want to add a room to your home and none of the neighbors have a problem with it, you shouldn't need to ask permission and pay off various government representatives. Simply because someone claims to represent something, if you don't even know the person, how can you verify you even gave the guy any authority to determine some issue for you? If there's a dispute, that's what the justice system is for. I don't recommend people go around suing and taking everyone to court, and likely there are problems with the justice system but English Common Law and trial by jury etc. has been an excellent foundation of justice for a long time and places people, legally on very similar footing (though the ideas of jury selection and allowing judges a large amount of control over evidence etc. are also issues).
As usual, I'm not exactly on topic and ramble. But these issues obviously do pertain to many of the political and social conflicts that exist. In many ways this may be simply the current round of ongoing struggles humanity has always faced and I recognize that positive results are also being seen. Changes will come and ultimately I have confidence that the truths and realities will win out. Out of all the attempts at tyranny around the world, not a single one endures for long. A cancer can grow but it must constantly spread and syphon off the life of healthy cells to remain alive. Whether or not this cancer is isolated, and expected to live on its own merit or not, ultimately the same result is reached. The only question is how much is lost along the way. (Sadly none of these damages can truly be undone, though the learning process may be necessary and inevitable ... it just sucks, on occasion, to be trapped in a "democracy" with slow learners
but maybe that's also inevitable to an extend something we all experience in various ways at different times. We all have different strengths and do what we can in our own ways, and I guess that must be accepted as good enough if you're going to rely on the help of others to effect changes)
I just have no time right now, but we must be fellow Libertarians. We just must be!
Okay, soundhertz. You can take your rest now.
Hail Libertarians!!
Hail!!!!
Good thing, I was born free
And, good thing soundhertz like it here....
Congratulations, guys!
Hail Libertarians!!
Hail!!!!
Good thing, I was born free
And, good thing soundhertz like it here....
Congratulations, guys!
Hi all,
Thanks to everyone for positive comments!
Been away for a couple of days, but its nice to come back and see no bickering! Well done to all of us!!! ...See? It CAN be done!!
In my experience, and this (still) is my personal experience, we only fight and confront other people to avoid the fighting and confrontation within ourselves, but it always comes back to us, like an echo from them again, anyway!
Fighting is thus pointless!
To stop the endless cycle of stupidity we have to stand up and be counted. Face our fears, and accept that we are not so great, and we don't always get it 'right'. This is no 'bad' thing! rEvolution is about new ideas; new ways of doing things, and adjusting to new surroundings. Psychologically, this means that we need to expose the unconscious in order to 'move forwards'.
When there is non-evolution, there is stagnation, and extinction.
(If only 'the church' hadn't reacted to Darwin's discoveries with a 'knee-jerk' response. There is absolutely no good reason why 'God' and 'Nature' should not be the same thing! - And as we are only using 'Science' to describe 'Nature' to ourselves, there is another obvious link to the One True Reality.)
'Consciousness' does not just 'happen' because we open our eyes. It has to be brought into being by the Individual. It takes a lot of, sometimes, very difficult work. Neither can consciousness be forced on another. It must be the work of the individual, as it requires a personal and unique perspective of your own version of the One True Reality, to give it 'purpose'.
The message from the discovery of evolution tells us, ..that life must further more life... (not destroy it, aimlessly!)
Trying to avoid getting 'political' here, but everything has a twist of politics in it somewhere, so here's my take on what an unconscious society can expect...
An unconscious society offers its next generation two possible scenarios; that of self-enforced (delusional) slavery, or that of death (through prefabricated 'wars' or pollution). A new generation born of Life, will never truely accept this, and so when the state of 'mental slavery' is realised, the only possible resolutions are either a 'conscious and forward-thinking adaptation', or another bloody revolution. These are the options, ultimately, that society forces on its 'young'. We should not be surprised if it chooses the latter, when the former is discouraged.
Steve.
P.S. soundhertz? are you sure? - "One good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel ok..." - Bob Marley.
Thanks to everyone for positive comments!
Been away for a couple of days, but its nice to come back and see no bickering! Well done to all of us!!! ...See? It CAN be done!!
In my experience, and this (still) is my personal experience, we only fight and confront other people to avoid the fighting and confrontation within ourselves, but it always comes back to us, like an echo from them again, anyway!
Fighting is thus pointless!
To stop the endless cycle of stupidity we have to stand up and be counted. Face our fears, and accept that we are not so great, and we don't always get it 'right'. This is no 'bad' thing! rEvolution is about new ideas; new ways of doing things, and adjusting to new surroundings. Psychologically, this means that we need to expose the unconscious in order to 'move forwards'.
When there is non-evolution, there is stagnation, and extinction.
(If only 'the church' hadn't reacted to Darwin's discoveries with a 'knee-jerk' response. There is absolutely no good reason why 'God' and 'Nature' should not be the same thing! - And as we are only using 'Science' to describe 'Nature' to ourselves, there is another obvious link to the One True Reality.)
'Consciousness' does not just 'happen' because we open our eyes. It has to be brought into being by the Individual. It takes a lot of, sometimes, very difficult work. Neither can consciousness be forced on another. It must be the work of the individual, as it requires a personal and unique perspective of your own version of the One True Reality, to give it 'purpose'.
The message from the discovery of evolution tells us, ..that life must further more life... (not destroy it, aimlessly!)
Trying to avoid getting 'political' here, but everything has a twist of politics in it somewhere, so here's my take on what an unconscious society can expect...
An unconscious society offers its next generation two possible scenarios; that of self-enforced (delusional) slavery, or that of death (through prefabricated 'wars' or pollution). A new generation born of Life, will never truely accept this, and so when the state of 'mental slavery' is realised, the only possible resolutions are either a 'conscious and forward-thinking adaptation', or another bloody revolution. These are the options, ultimately, that society forces on its 'young'. We should not be surprised if it chooses the latter, when the former is discouraged.
Steve.
P.S. soundhertz? are you sure? - "One good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel ok..." - Bob Marley.
Hello, everybody, mind, and spirit!
Nice going (in this thread as well as others in the whole neighborhood)! And, Steve, as usual very well said, in the above!
I would like to make a few observations herein since Steven’s last several posts kept me critical and scientific thinkings going, and echoing in my mind.
1) The dynamism of this Forum: As you all might have already anticipated, this is a rather unusual forum (especially this thread), because it requires us to double or even triple think within these 2 dynamic lines of thinking, specifically in Science and Religion, critically before we can each express constructively in our meta-cognitive, multi-reflective analysis of our own active, creative, humanity in the 21st century, and beyond!
Traditionally, these human survival issues should have fallen into the purview of all world religious thinkers; unfortunately, with their persistently outmoded training in their each unilateral lines of religious thinking, they all are now unable to think or venture out of their each religious doctrinal box, so to speak!
To wit: even as recently as in the late 1990s, Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) had indeed once attempted a dialogue among the world major religions, but to no avail! Furthermore, even in the Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical God is Love (2006), his holiness, again as usual, simply and self-righteously, denounced and ignored the entire human Reality of the Modern World today. Meanwhile, in the Islamic world of politics, the sociopath Osama bin Laden and the varied dictators (except modern King Abdullah II of Jordan) notwithstanding: Is the schizophrenic hotheaded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the best representation, that the theocratic Iran could produce?
Thus, by modern standards, as multidisciplinary as educated human beings that we are—intellectually and spiritually; scientifically and religiously—we should be able to identify, analyze, and help solve our Modern World problems better. This is because nowadays we are not being limited by any stretches of the imagination or practice of any too self-righteous religions, whether consciously or subconsciously, in our Modern World human affairs. So, in this forum, any respect—concerning matters of our heart and mind or even body and soul—goes; as long as we each can sensibly justify our own arguments with our own sensitive observations of the Modern World, as a whole, globally and holistically!
2) The challenge of Modern Mind: As such, Steven (if I may presume that is your first name), it is appropriate to discuss the US as a nation role model on this planet Earth. In fact, the US as a nation was founded on the idealism of the European Enlightenment, as a perfect republic-building that was implanted by the North American colonies, at a time when the US colonial settlers all rose and began to resist the then British imperial rules, as well as the religious persecutions from Europe since the 17th century!
Unfortunately, since after the observations and publication of the French political thinker-historian Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal work Democracy in America (1835), the national character of the US republic had had then begun to change—especially at the turn of the 20th century, during which time, as the European imperial powers were beginning to retreat from all over the world; the US, now under the banner of “liberation and democracy” had begun, in earnest and in hubris, to persistently replace the colonial vacuum, or imperialism, wherever possible around the world—thus culminating the Modern World mess that we are in today!
Indeed, the US today is a mirror image of the Roman empire, across the Atlantic in the 21st century—wherein the torch of Enlightenment had had long gradually dimmed domestically, and essentially extinguished externally—as the US religious right (Christian fundamentalism) is on the rise, with the dim-wit President George W Bush as its “born-again” Augustus Constantine (272-337). Consequently, the lack of intellectual curiosity in our President Bush (2001-8) represents a serious challenge and reversal of Modern Mind at large; whose international multicultural ignorance and incompetency in managing the US (Hurricane Katrina, 2005) and the Modern World (war on terror) affairs have had since been gravely masked by the 9/11 attacks (2001) and the continued Islamist-fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorist threats on the US, as well as elsewhere worldwide!
3) The growth and expansion of Modern Mind: Last, but not least, Howtothinklikegod and Joe (no punk intended), this forum will indeed prepare us to think like God or Gods (actively and humanly); as opposed to the traditional religionist thinkings (archaic or reformed) who would rather dutifully want us to think only of God or Gods (passively and submissively to religionists' mind control interests), or even Nothingness (as in meditation; a process of “mindfulness” without thinking or understanding ever)! Therefore, the evolution of Modern Mind since the Enlightenment—especially in the 21st century and beyond—is to enable us (the modern intellectual mortals) to discuss all matters concerning our hearts and minds worldwide; scientifically and humanly; constructively, religiously, and truthfully! All in one diverse Unity, Continuity, and Connectivity; all in respect of our vital dynamic humanity; intellectual and spiritual; active and creative; individual and societal; corporational and communal; national and international; and vice versa; horizontally, vertically, pluralistically, and multiculturally worldwide!
And, Steve, thank you for listing the link to the Islamic world of brave thinkers, intellectual and spiritual. As usual, you’re one step ahead of me!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy thinking and scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 5/14/6usct1:39p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006
Nice going (in this thread as well as others in the whole neighborhood)! And, Steve, as usual very well said, in the above!
I would like to make a few observations herein since Steven’s last several posts kept me critical and scientific thinkings going, and echoing in my mind.
1) The dynamism of this Forum: As you all might have already anticipated, this is a rather unusual forum (especially this thread), because it requires us to double or even triple think within these 2 dynamic lines of thinking, specifically in Science and Religion, critically before we can each express constructively in our meta-cognitive, multi-reflective analysis of our own active, creative, humanity in the 21st century, and beyond!
Traditionally, these human survival issues should have fallen into the purview of all world religious thinkers; unfortunately, with their persistently outmoded training in their each unilateral lines of religious thinking, they all are now unable to think or venture out of their each religious doctrinal box, so to speak!
To wit: even as recently as in the late 1990s, Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) had indeed once attempted a dialogue among the world major religions, but to no avail! Furthermore, even in the Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical God is Love (2006), his holiness, again as usual, simply and self-righteously, denounced and ignored the entire human Reality of the Modern World today. Meanwhile, in the Islamic world of politics, the sociopath Osama bin Laden and the varied dictators (except modern King Abdullah II of Jordan) notwithstanding: Is the schizophrenic hotheaded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the best representation, that the theocratic Iran could produce?
Thus, by modern standards, as multidisciplinary as educated human beings that we are—intellectually and spiritually; scientifically and religiously—we should be able to identify, analyze, and help solve our Modern World problems better. This is because nowadays we are not being limited by any stretches of the imagination or practice of any too self-righteous religions, whether consciously or subconsciously, in our Modern World human affairs. So, in this forum, any respect—concerning matters of our heart and mind or even body and soul—goes; as long as we each can sensibly justify our own arguments with our own sensitive observations of the Modern World, as a whole, globally and holistically!
2) The challenge of Modern Mind: As such, Steven (if I may presume that is your first name), it is appropriate to discuss the US as a nation role model on this planet Earth. In fact, the US as a nation was founded on the idealism of the European Enlightenment, as a perfect republic-building that was implanted by the North American colonies, at a time when the US colonial settlers all rose and began to resist the then British imperial rules, as well as the religious persecutions from Europe since the 17th century!
Unfortunately, since after the observations and publication of the French political thinker-historian Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal work Democracy in America (1835), the national character of the US republic had had then begun to change—especially at the turn of the 20th century, during which time, as the European imperial powers were beginning to retreat from all over the world; the US, now under the banner of “liberation and democracy” had begun, in earnest and in hubris, to persistently replace the colonial vacuum, or imperialism, wherever possible around the world—thus culminating the Modern World mess that we are in today!
Indeed, the US today is a mirror image of the Roman empire, across the Atlantic in the 21st century—wherein the torch of Enlightenment had had long gradually dimmed domestically, and essentially extinguished externally—as the US religious right (Christian fundamentalism) is on the rise, with the dim-wit President George W Bush as its “born-again” Augustus Constantine (272-337). Consequently, the lack of intellectual curiosity in our President Bush (2001-8) represents a serious challenge and reversal of Modern Mind at large; whose international multicultural ignorance and incompetency in managing the US (Hurricane Katrina, 2005) and the Modern World (war on terror) affairs have had since been gravely masked by the 9/11 attacks (2001) and the continued Islamist-fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorist threats on the US, as well as elsewhere worldwide!
3) The growth and expansion of Modern Mind: Last, but not least, Howtothinklikegod and Joe (no punk intended), this forum will indeed prepare us to think like God or Gods (actively and humanly); as opposed to the traditional religionist thinkings (archaic or reformed) who would rather dutifully want us to think only of God or Gods (passively and submissively to religionists' mind control interests), or even Nothingness (as in meditation; a process of “mindfulness” without thinking or understanding ever)! Therefore, the evolution of Modern Mind since the Enlightenment—especially in the 21st century and beyond—is to enable us (the modern intellectual mortals) to discuss all matters concerning our hearts and minds worldwide; scientifically and humanly; constructively, religiously, and truthfully! All in one diverse Unity, Continuity, and Connectivity; all in respect of our vital dynamic humanity; intellectual and spiritual; active and creative; individual and societal; corporational and communal; national and international; and vice versa; horizontally, vertically, pluralistically, and multiculturally worldwide!
And, Steve, thank you for listing the link to the Islamic world of brave thinkers, intellectual and spiritual. As usual, you’re one step ahead of me!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy thinking and scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 5/14/6usct1:39p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006
Hi Mong, et al...
Mong, thanks for the kind comments. I say as I see! (not always as objectively as I'd like, but working on it!)
- I don't think any sensible 'leader' would put themselves in the firing line. The real Gepetto doesn't do speeches, in any language, or country! (But he may prepare a few...)
...As a side-note to that, how come, if the Europeans defeated the British in the struggle for American dominance, the 'Americans' then adopted English as their national language? Sounds more like an Empire victory, to me!
Esoteric governance is now taken to the extreme...because 'governments' have a little problem with Unity. The whole ideal behind 'government' is the policy of 'divide and rule', and this is accepted as 'basically sound' psychology by the masses, when actually it is Insanity in any other disguise. In the individual, a divided mind is a mentally unstable mind, but in the case of a whole society, division becomes somehow 'acceptable', even when it leads to all out war. It begs the question: Are we all on the verge of madness? Able to be 'tipped' toward further insanity (= war), when it suits a 'higher political agenda'?
But....'Politics' is a part of our psychological make-up, as individuals. We are all political and philosophical, by Nature, but the power to believe in ourselves is taken away from us at a very young age, and therefore needs a lot of work to re-find.
We are taught to believe in 'heroes', and 'great minds', neglecting the fact that we all have minds, and it is up to us, as individuals, to make them as 'great' as we can, in this lifetime, with the purpose of passing on our experience into the evolving consciousness of the rest of Humanity (= 'Life').
I think a lot of people are going to be reluctant to accept the True Reality of Existence.
Firstly, they will have to give up the addiction of searching! - People have become so accustomed to this addiction that they simply love the mystery too much, and they are not even conscious of being addicted in this way, so don't even see the problem. (The unconscious 'scientific' view?)
Secondly, because of this, very few people have thought about what they are going to do with themselves when they are 'armed' with the power of Truth?
And more, people find comfort in their own myths, their own constructs of what 'reality' is, to them, and they are quick to defend this 'reality', everytime 'it' feels threatened. This is why people have to come to their own conclusions. A persons unconscious is their own true 'authority'. It is what they listen to, before any external decisions are made, and when they are in a constant 'defence mode', they leave themselves no option but to react to any infringement upon their 'beliefs'. (The unconscious 'religious' view?)
If we had really wanted to know the Truth, we would have listened to those who have been speaking it for the last 5000 years...
'Arming' people with the True Nature of Reality will open a whole new 'can of worms' that nobody is prepared for; that remains in the unconscious, and is therefore feared, as part of the 'unknown'. It will mean that people have to take a greater responsibility for their own actions, and that is 'foreign' policy for most people, who are accustomed to having their 'politics' designed for them...
...so much easier to sit at the pc, and defend your personal stance on 'science' , or 'religion'... so much easier to ignore Reality altogether... so much easier for the real Gepetto...
- I don't think any sensible 'leader' would put themselves in the firing line. The real Gepetto doesn't do speeches, in any language, or country! (But he may prepare a few...)
...As a side-note to that, how come, if the Europeans defeated the British in the struggle for American dominance, the 'Americans' then adopted English as their national language? Sounds more like an Empire victory, to me!
Esoteric governance is now taken to the extreme...because 'governments' have a little problem with Unity. The whole ideal behind 'government' is the policy of 'divide and rule', and this is accepted as 'basically sound' psychology by the masses, when actually it is Insanity in any other disguise. In the individual, a divided mind is a mentally unstable mind, but in the case of a whole society, division becomes somehow 'acceptable', even when it leads to all out war. It begs the question: Are we all on the verge of madness? Able to be 'tipped' toward further insanity (= war), when it suits a 'higher political agenda'?
But....'Politics' is a part of our psychological make-up, as individuals. We are all political and philosophical, by Nature, but the power to believe in ourselves is taken away from us at a very young age, and therefore needs a lot of work to re-find.
We are taught to believe in 'heroes', and 'great minds', neglecting the fact that we all have minds, and it is up to us, as individuals, to make them as 'great' as we can, in this lifetime, with the purpose of passing on our experience into the evolving consciousness of the rest of Humanity (= 'Life').
I think a lot of people are going to be reluctant to accept the True Reality of Existence.
Firstly, they will have to give up the addiction of searching! - People have become so accustomed to this addiction that they simply love the mystery too much, and they are not even conscious of being addicted in this way, so don't even see the problem. (The unconscious 'scientific' view?)
Secondly, because of this, very few people have thought about what they are going to do with themselves when they are 'armed' with the power of Truth?
And more, people find comfort in their own myths, their own constructs of what 'reality' is, to them, and they are quick to defend this 'reality', everytime 'it' feels threatened. This is why people have to come to their own conclusions. A persons unconscious is their own true 'authority'. It is what they listen to, before any external decisions are made, and when they are in a constant 'defence mode', they leave themselves no option but to react to any infringement upon their 'beliefs'. (The unconscious 'religious' view?)
If we had really wanted to know the Truth, we would have listened to those who have been speaking it for the last 5000 years...
'Arming' people with the True Nature of Reality will open a whole new 'can of worms' that nobody is prepared for; that remains in the unconscious, and is therefore feared, as part of the 'unknown'. It will mean that people have to take a greater responsibility for their own actions, and that is 'foreign' policy for most people, who are accustomed to having their 'politics' designed for them...
...so much easier to sit at the pc, and defend your personal stance on 'science' , or 'religion'... so much easier to ignore Reality altogether... so much easier for the real Gepetto...
I believe that the longer and more vigorously we suckle the poisoned breast of government will the difficulty in the inevitable weaning proportionately be.
- Exactly! I think the Human 'problem' is that we are afraid to be in control. We, generally, are not sure enough of ourselves to accept the responsibility, and anyone who is becomes 'mad' with the sudden rush of power. The way to counteract this 'power-madness' is with compassion and wisdom. To find these things within ourselves, we need to be more consciously aware than we currently are...
It takes work to truely understand yourself {"As above, so below"} It takes work for Humanity to truely understand itself...
- I very much doubt that, my friend. After all, you're the one with their book finished!
- I think i've said most of my piece. Hope we can attract more people to this thread, or at least get some thinking about Unity, instead of division...
Steve. (knot of thee, swirled.)
Hello all,
Knot, Jed Clampett would be proud of the bibful you have slobbered here.
It seems that no matter what or where I post, it eventually ends up boiling down to this. I'm talking about it elsewhere as I 'speak'. There are either fundamentalists or agnostics, regardless of your beliefs whatsoever.
To the fundamentalist, there is no understanding. If one is a religious fundamentalist, there is only faith. If one is a scientific fundamentalist, there is only repeatable observation. While they will call that 'understanding', each in their own way, there is no such thing as "understand that in Reality..." What!? Whose reality? We need to solve that little tidbit before we ever get to "...they do not oppose." And there you have it: the key is locked in the trunk. And if you blow it open it's Pandora in full regalia.
I feel like a real loner here. Both scientists AND Godbelievers go after me: Democrats team up with Republicans! So this thread will be interesting. I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been attacked with both discreet barrels yet.
The key as I see it is to find a science that DETECTS Spirit, let alone defines it. Dubious 'sciences' try, but once again, observe, repeat, experiment, observe, repeat. Not that they've done it with Relativity over and over again, and it's STILL a theory! Nuclear plants, mushroom clouds, and it's STILL a theory? Why of course; it doesn't explain EVERYTHING now, does it? And if Mr. Witten et al really do present an airtight mathematics that everything fits nicely into, how do they prove that it's the 'only' math? Can there be more than one that works? Or is 11D String Theory the only possibility? And so far, those branes are not indicating thought energy satisfactory to most all physicists.
Ironic, I feel much closer to the QPhysicists than the Godbelievers, but Godbelievers would gladly accept scientific proof of God, while scientists would find it very stressful to see branes indicating thought. Because that is the crux right there - noncorporeal thought energy indicates a source for that thought.
How would we know thought energy from gamma rays, cosmic rays, etc.? Does it have a signature? Why haven't we seen it? Does thought travel along the dimensional demarcations undetected? Would the physics of thought exist independantly of the quantum lattice? Can physics even be requisitioned to determine spirit?
All these questions have to be answered! And many more. We need the questions first. Unless someone here can point to that mountain and move it, we need the questions first.
What does spirit translate into? Not matter, unconscious energy does that. How and where is spirit, if it's part of this Universe? Or is it? And there's a fine one: if it isn't, THEN how do we find it? We can't even get to the heart of what we DO know is there!
Many questions,friends. No answers beyond 'personal experience'. I think it would take a miracle. Any takers? Scratch that, any Givers? Billions are waiting for just one.
jb
Mong, thanks for the kind comments. I say as I see! (not always as objectively as I'd like, but working on it!)
QUOTE
Is the schizophrenic hotheaded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the best representation, that the theocratic Iran could produce?
- I don't think any sensible 'leader' would put themselves in the firing line. The real Gepetto doesn't do speeches, in any language, or country! (But he may prepare a few...)
...As a side-note to that, how come, if the Europeans defeated the British in the struggle for American dominance, the 'Americans' then adopted English as their national language? Sounds more like an Empire victory, to me!
Esoteric governance is now taken to the extreme...because 'governments' have a little problem with Unity. The whole ideal behind 'government' is the policy of 'divide and rule', and this is accepted as 'basically sound' psychology by the masses, when actually it is Insanity in any other disguise. In the individual, a divided mind is a mentally unstable mind, but in the case of a whole society, division becomes somehow 'acceptable', even when it leads to all out war. It begs the question: Are we all on the verge of madness? Able to be 'tipped' toward further insanity (= war), when it suits a 'higher political agenda'?
But....'Politics' is a part of our psychological make-up, as individuals. We are all political and philosophical, by Nature, but the power to believe in ourselves is taken away from us at a very young age, and therefore needs a lot of work to re-find.
We are taught to believe in 'heroes', and 'great minds', neglecting the fact that we all have minds, and it is up to us, as individuals, to make them as 'great' as we can, in this lifetime, with the purpose of passing on our experience into the evolving consciousness of the rest of Humanity (= 'Life').
I think a lot of people are going to be reluctant to accept the True Reality of Existence.
Firstly, they will have to give up the addiction of searching! - People have become so accustomed to this addiction that they simply love the mystery too much, and they are not even conscious of being addicted in this way, so don't even see the problem. (The unconscious 'scientific' view?)
Secondly, because of this, very few people have thought about what they are going to do with themselves when they are 'armed' with the power of Truth?
And more, people find comfort in their own myths, their own constructs of what 'reality' is, to them, and they are quick to defend this 'reality', everytime 'it' feels threatened. This is why people have to come to their own conclusions. A persons unconscious is their own true 'authority'. It is what they listen to, before any external decisions are made, and when they are in a constant 'defence mode', they leave themselves no option but to react to any infringement upon their 'beliefs'. (The unconscious 'religious' view?)
If we had really wanted to know the Truth, we would have listened to those who have been speaking it for the last 5000 years...
'Arming' people with the True Nature of Reality will open a whole new 'can of worms' that nobody is prepared for; that remains in the unconscious, and is therefore feared, as part of the 'unknown'. It will mean that people have to take a greater responsibility for their own actions, and that is 'foreign' policy for most people, who are accustomed to having their 'politics' designed for them...
...so much easier to sit at the pc, and defend your personal stance on 'science' , or 'religion'... so much easier to ignore Reality altogether... so much easier for the real Gepetto...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is the schizophrenic hotheaded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the best representation, that the theocratic Iran could produce? |
- I don't think any sensible 'leader' would put themselves in the firing line. The real Gepetto doesn't do speeches, in any language, or country! (But he may prepare a few...)
...As a side-note to that, how come, if the Europeans defeated the British in the struggle for American dominance, the 'Americans' then adopted English as their national language? Sounds more like an Empire victory, to me!
Esoteric governance is now taken to the extreme...because 'governments' have a little problem with Unity. The whole ideal behind 'government' is the policy of 'divide and rule', and this is accepted as 'basically sound' psychology by the masses, when actually it is Insanity in any other disguise. In the individual, a divided mind is a mentally unstable mind, but in the case of a whole society, division becomes somehow 'acceptable', even when it leads to all out war. It begs the question: Are we all on the verge of madness? Able to be 'tipped' toward further insanity (= war), when it suits a 'higher political agenda'?
But....'Politics' is a part of our psychological make-up, as individuals. We are all political and philosophical, by Nature, but the power to believe in ourselves is taken away from us at a very young age, and therefore needs a lot of work to re-find.
We are taught to believe in 'heroes', and 'great minds', neglecting the fact that we all have minds, and it is up to us, as individuals, to make them as 'great' as we can, in this lifetime, with the purpose of passing on our experience into the evolving consciousness of the rest of Humanity (= 'Life').
I think a lot of people are going to be reluctant to accept the True Reality of Existence.
Firstly, they will have to give up the addiction of searching! - People have become so accustomed to this addiction that they simply love the mystery too much, and they are not even conscious of being addicted in this way, so don't even see the problem. (The unconscious 'scientific' view?)
Secondly, because of this, very few people have thought about what they are going to do with themselves when they are 'armed' with the power of Truth?
And more, people find comfort in their own myths, their own constructs of what 'reality' is, to them, and they are quick to defend this 'reality', everytime 'it' feels threatened. This is why people have to come to their own conclusions. A persons unconscious is their own true 'authority'. It is what they listen to, before any external decisions are made, and when they are in a constant 'defence mode', they leave themselves no option but to react to any infringement upon their 'beliefs'. (The unconscious 'religious' view?)
If we had really wanted to know the Truth, we would have listened to those who have been speaking it for the last 5000 years...
'Arming' people with the True Nature of Reality will open a whole new 'can of worms' that nobody is prepared for; that remains in the unconscious, and is therefore feared, as part of the 'unknown'. It will mean that people have to take a greater responsibility for their own actions, and that is 'foreign' policy for most people, who are accustomed to having their 'politics' designed for them...
...so much easier to sit at the pc, and defend your personal stance on 'science' , or 'religion'... so much easier to ignore Reality altogether... so much easier for the real Gepetto...
I believe that the longer and more vigorously we suckle the poisoned breast of government will the difficulty in the inevitable weaning proportionately be.
- Exactly! I think the Human 'problem' is that we are afraid to be in control. We, generally, are not sure enough of ourselves to accept the responsibility, and anyone who is becomes 'mad' with the sudden rush of power. The way to counteract this 'power-madness' is with compassion and wisdom. To find these things within ourselves, we need to be more consciously aware than we currently are...
It takes work to truely understand yourself {"As above, so below"} It takes work for Humanity to truely understand itself...
QUOTE
...As usual, you’re one step ahead of me!
- I very much doubt that, my friend. After all, you're the one with their book finished!
- I think i've said most of my piece. Hope we can attract more people to this thread, or at least get some thinking about Unity, instead of division...
Steve. (knot of thee, swirled.)
QUOTE
the moment we 'choose a side', we un-choose its (perceived) 'opposite', and if 'Science' and 'Religion' are thought to be opposing one another then the only way to reconcile them is to understand that in Reality they do not oppose.
Hello all,
Knot, Jed Clampett would be proud of the bibful you have slobbered here.
It seems that no matter what or where I post, it eventually ends up boiling down to this. I'm talking about it elsewhere as I 'speak'. There are either fundamentalists or agnostics, regardless of your beliefs whatsoever.
To the fundamentalist, there is no understanding. If one is a religious fundamentalist, there is only faith. If one is a scientific fundamentalist, there is only repeatable observation. While they will call that 'understanding', each in their own way, there is no such thing as "understand that in Reality..." What!? Whose reality? We need to solve that little tidbit before we ever get to "...they do not oppose." And there you have it: the key is locked in the trunk. And if you blow it open it's Pandora in full regalia.
I feel like a real loner here. Both scientists AND Godbelievers go after me: Democrats team up with Republicans! So this thread will be interesting. I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been attacked with both discreet barrels yet.
The key as I see it is to find a science that DETECTS Spirit, let alone defines it. Dubious 'sciences' try, but once again, observe, repeat, experiment, observe, repeat. Not that they've done it with Relativity over and over again, and it's STILL a theory! Nuclear plants, mushroom clouds, and it's STILL a theory? Why of course; it doesn't explain EVERYTHING now, does it? And if Mr. Witten et al really do present an airtight mathematics that everything fits nicely into, how do they prove that it's the 'only' math? Can there be more than one that works? Or is 11D String Theory the only possibility? And so far, those branes are not indicating thought energy satisfactory to most all physicists.
Ironic, I feel much closer to the QPhysicists than the Godbelievers, but Godbelievers would gladly accept scientific proof of God, while scientists would find it very stressful to see branes indicating thought. Because that is the crux right there - noncorporeal thought energy indicates a source for that thought.
How would we know thought energy from gamma rays, cosmic rays, etc.? Does it have a signature? Why haven't we seen it? Does thought travel along the dimensional demarcations undetected? Would the physics of thought exist independantly of the quantum lattice? Can physics even be requisitioned to determine spirit?
All these questions have to be answered! And many more. We need the questions first. Unless someone here can point to that mountain and move it, we need the questions first.
What does spirit translate into? Not matter, unconscious energy does that. How and where is spirit, if it's part of this Universe? Or is it? And there's a fine one: if it isn't, THEN how do we find it? We can't even get to the heart of what we DO know is there!
Many questions,friends. No answers beyond 'personal experience'. I think it would take a miracle. Any takers? Scratch that, any Givers? Billions are waiting for just one.
jb
Hi soundhertz,
Perhaps I should explain what I mean when I reference 'we'. 'We', I tend to generalise as Humanity, en masse. The 'Race'. You know, 'US'. Therefore when Humanity 'chooses' a certain 'teaching', 'following', or 'path', it neglects all the other options it could adopt. In transcending this 'judgement', the individual is able to better see all options, as it disregards nothing. In my personal experience, I have been able to understand that anybody who thinks about life in any depth, and with any honesty, will eventually come to the same conclusions as everyone else. This is because there can only be one Reality. And, because we are all unique, we all have our own unique perspectives on this One Thing. (Imagine all of the people, floating around in Space, looking at the Earth. No two people can have the same view, as no two people can occupy the same space at the same time. Thus, we all see it slightly differently.)
- Hopefully, you will be able to see what I mean, from the above, when I say that 'Reality' cannot be divided. It can only be what it is. This is outside of ANY Human judgement, especially as neither 'science' nor 'religion' can agree on any 'truth' regarding the Nature of existence. As far as the individual Human is concerned, there is only 'personal perspective', but for Humanity (and 'Life', generally), en masse, there are also the True 'laws' of existence, to which everything must conform.
'We', yes, Humanity, must learn to differentiate between the subjective (personal) view, and the objective (Universal Reality). 'Must', because our subjective views lead to insult, to mistrust, to fear, to violence, to the out and out insanity of global warfare. All this, neglecting the element of suicide through pollution...
'Reconciliation' is thus the 'glimmer of hope', in our pointless addiction to division.
- Hopefully, you will be able to see what I mean, from the above, when I say that 'Reality' cannot be divided. It can only be what it is. This is outside of ANY Human judgement, especially as neither 'science' nor 'religion' can agree on any 'truth' regarding the Nature of existence. As far as the individual Human is concerned, there is only 'personal perspective', but for Humanity (and 'Life', generally), en masse, there are also the True 'laws' of existence, to which everything must conform.
'We', yes, Humanity, must learn to differentiate between the subjective (personal) view, and the objective (Universal Reality). 'Must', because our subjective views lead to insult, to mistrust, to fear, to violence, to the out and out insanity of global warfare. All this, neglecting the element of suicide through pollution...
'Reconciliation' is thus the 'glimmer of hope', in our pointless addiction to division.
I feel like a real loner here. Both scientists AND Godbelievers go after me: Democrats team up with Republicans! So this thread will be interesting. I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been attacked with both discreet barrels yet
- You are not a loner, soundhertz. People 'go after' themselves, indirectly. They 'oppose' other world views because they are not altogether sure of their own. 'Other views' are seen as a threat (particularly ones of Unity, it would seem!), and their natural reaction to a 'threat' is to 'defend' themselves. This perpetuates more threats, and so on.. It is an endless and pointless exercise in questioning yourself via the reactions of 'others'.
Many people are feeling the same way as you are, about feeling like a 'loner', and this is because there is nothing 'concrete' in following another persons 'belief'. When we subscribe to any 'system', we follow. When we 'pick a side', we follow. We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are. We can have our own thoughts, and indeed, our very 'purpose' for being alive is to experience 'Life' in our own unique way, and relay this information back to the ongoing evolutionary consciousness (a fancy way of saying that we should learn from personal experience, and pass any 'improvements' to our children).
I would suggest that the reason why this thread has not been 'attacked' (so far) is that people unconsciously recognise the need for Unity, even though they are conditioned to being 'divisive'. (this is nobodies 'fault', we are just so used to living in conflict, that we find it difficult to imagine any other 'way' of existing!)
If scientists are searching for the 'Theory of everything', and religious types are apparently connecting with their 'one true god', it is simply further proof that Humans are ALL searching for Unity, all be it in their own unique way...('We' are all 'scientific' and 'religious', by Nature - and those of us 'in the middle' get pulled into 'lonerism' by not siding with one or the other. Sometimes a tough path, but the only REAL one, as it encompasses BOTH sides of 'Life'.)
- Yes. You know it! And it can only be acheived with Unity. Maybe the 'science' that detects 'spirit' IS Unity?
- Yes. You know it! And it can only be acheived with Unity. Maybe the 'science' that detects 'spirit' IS Unity?
Jed Clampett would be proud of the bibful you have slobbered here.
- I'm going to have to ignore this, but please, is this reconciliation?
Best regards,
Steve.
P.S. sorry if you took the 'bob marley' quote the wrong way, it was intended as a 'hand-shake'.
Perhaps I should explain what I mean when I reference 'we'. 'We', I tend to generalise as Humanity, en masse. The 'Race'. You know, 'US'. Therefore when Humanity 'chooses' a certain 'teaching', 'following', or 'path', it neglects all the other options it could adopt. In transcending this 'judgement', the individual is able to better see all options, as it disregards nothing. In my personal experience, I have been able to understand that anybody who thinks about life in any depth, and with any honesty, will eventually come to the same conclusions as everyone else. This is because there can only be one Reality. And, because we are all unique, we all have our own unique perspectives on this One Thing. (Imagine all of the people, floating around in Space, looking at the Earth. No two people can have the same view, as no two people can occupy the same space at the same time. Thus, we all see it slightly differently.)
QUOTE
Whose reality?
- Hopefully, you will be able to see what I mean, from the above, when I say that 'Reality' cannot be divided. It can only be what it is. This is outside of ANY Human judgement, especially as neither 'science' nor 'religion' can agree on any 'truth' regarding the Nature of existence. As far as the individual Human is concerned, there is only 'personal perspective', but for Humanity (and 'Life', generally), en masse, there are also the True 'laws' of existence, to which everything must conform.
'We', yes, Humanity, must learn to differentiate between the subjective (personal) view, and the objective (Universal Reality). 'Must', because our subjective views lead to insult, to mistrust, to fear, to violence, to the out and out insanity of global warfare. All this, neglecting the element of suicide through pollution...
'Reconciliation' is thus the 'glimmer of hope', in our pointless addiction to division.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Whose reality? |
- Hopefully, you will be able to see what I mean, from the above, when I say that 'Reality' cannot be divided. It can only be what it is. This is outside of ANY Human judgement, especially as neither 'science' nor 'religion' can agree on any 'truth' regarding the Nature of existence. As far as the individual Human is concerned, there is only 'personal perspective', but for Humanity (and 'Life', generally), en masse, there are also the True 'laws' of existence, to which everything must conform.
'We', yes, Humanity, must learn to differentiate between the subjective (personal) view, and the objective (Universal Reality). 'Must', because our subjective views lead to insult, to mistrust, to fear, to violence, to the out and out insanity of global warfare. All this, neglecting the element of suicide through pollution...
'Reconciliation' is thus the 'glimmer of hope', in our pointless addiction to division.
I feel like a real loner here. Both scientists AND Godbelievers go after me: Democrats team up with Republicans! So this thread will be interesting. I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been attacked with both discreet barrels yet
- You are not a loner, soundhertz. People 'go after' themselves, indirectly. They 'oppose' other world views because they are not altogether sure of their own. 'Other views' are seen as a threat (particularly ones of Unity, it would seem!), and their natural reaction to a 'threat' is to 'defend' themselves. This perpetuates more threats, and so on.. It is an endless and pointless exercise in questioning yourself via the reactions of 'others'.
Many people are feeling the same way as you are, about feeling like a 'loner', and this is because there is nothing 'concrete' in following another persons 'belief'. When we subscribe to any 'system', we follow. When we 'pick a side', we follow. We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are. We can have our own thoughts, and indeed, our very 'purpose' for being alive is to experience 'Life' in our own unique way, and relay this information back to the ongoing evolutionary consciousness (a fancy way of saying that we should learn from personal experience, and pass any 'improvements' to our children).
I would suggest that the reason why this thread has not been 'attacked' (so far) is that people unconsciously recognise the need for Unity, even though they are conditioned to being 'divisive'. (this is nobodies 'fault', we are just so used to living in conflict, that we find it difficult to imagine any other 'way' of existing!)
If scientists are searching for the 'Theory of everything', and religious types are apparently connecting with their 'one true god', it is simply further proof that Humans are ALL searching for Unity, all be it in their own unique way...('We' are all 'scientific' and 'religious', by Nature - and those of us 'in the middle' get pulled into 'lonerism' by not siding with one or the other. Sometimes a tough path, but the only REAL one, as it encompasses BOTH sides of 'Life'.)
QUOTE
The key as I see it is to find a science that DETECTS Spirit
- Yes. You know it! And it can only be acheived with Unity. Maybe the 'science' that detects 'spirit' IS Unity?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The key as I see it is to find a science that DETECTS Spirit |
- Yes. You know it! And it can only be acheived with Unity. Maybe the 'science' that detects 'spirit' IS Unity?
Jed Clampett would be proud of the bibful you have slobbered here.
- I'm going to have to ignore this, but please, is this reconciliation?
Best regards,
Steve.
P.S. sorry if you took the 'bob marley' quote the wrong way, it was intended as a 'hand-shake'.
Knot!
My mistake. The Clampett quote was a seconding of your quote - I agreed! I was just commenting on the difficulty of reconciliation.
The Marley quote I took correctly. We are on the same page!
jb
p.s. For the future, if I disagree with something you will surely know beyond doubt. (I do it nicely though.)
My mistake. The Clampett quote was a seconding of your quote - I agreed! I was just commenting on the difficulty of reconciliation.
The Marley quote I took correctly. We are on the same page!
jbp.s. For the future, if I disagree with something you will surely know beyond doubt. (I do it nicely though.)
Knot,
That's what we are. Some of us follow. Some of us lead. We are not completely followers. We are not completely leaders. We don't follow science. We follow men of science. We don't follow religion. We follow men of faith. Science and Religion are not things. They are men. They are us.
That's what we are. Some of us follow. Some of us lead. We are not completely followers. We are not completely leaders. We don't follow science. We follow men of science. We don't follow religion. We follow men of faith. Science and Religion are not things. They are men. They are us.
I would suggest that the reason why this thread has not been 'attacked' (so far) is that people unconsciously recognise the need for Unity, even though they are conditioned to being 'divisive'. (this is nobodies 'fault', we are just so used to living in conflict, that we find it difficult to imagine any other 'way' of existing!)
They are consciously aware of the need for unity.In fact, they are protesting, they are forming religious groups, praying, persuading,etc. Mankind knows what he needs. And he knows how to have those needs. And he knows that he will do everything to get those needs.
QUOTE
We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are.
That's what we are. Some of us follow. Some of us lead. We are not completely followers. We are not completely leaders. We don't follow science. We follow men of science. We don't follow religion. We follow men of faith. Science and Religion are not things. They are men. They are us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are. |
That's what we are. Some of us follow. Some of us lead. We are not completely followers. We are not completely leaders. We don't follow science. We follow men of science. We don't follow religion. We follow men of faith. Science and Religion are not things. They are men. They are us.
I would suggest that the reason why this thread has not been 'attacked' (so far) is that people unconsciously recognise the need for Unity, even though they are conditioned to being 'divisive'. (this is nobodies 'fault', we are just so used to living in conflict, that we find it difficult to imagine any other 'way' of existing!)
They are consciously aware of the need for unity.In fact, they are protesting, they are forming religious groups, praying, persuading,etc. Mankind knows what he needs. And he knows how to have those needs. And he knows that he will do everything to get those needs.
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 16 2006, 05:52 PM)
Knot!
My mistake. The Clampett quote was a seconding of your quote - I agreed! I was just commenting on the difficulty of reconciliation.
The Marley quote I took correctly. We are on the same page!
jb
p.s. For the future, if I disagree with something you will surely know beyond doubt. (I do it nicely though.)
In that case, it's MY mistake then!
I actually think that its ok to disagree from time to time. It shouldn't mean all out war. We all have a unique perspective, and a pretty poor acceptance of each others' understanding of how language should work, so no surprises, really!
New ideas come from disagreements, so they can't all be bad! (Is it possible that people who resist changes are people who were not allowed to disagree as children? - check out the mirror of time, folks!)
As long as we're on the same page, it doesn't matter how we get there!
"We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are"...
- We follow ideas. We are just as capable of ideas as the next 'man'. Breaking the stale-mate of 'following' takes a belief in yourself, and not some other 'man'. Whatever his thoughts, they will be second-hand by the time they reach you...
However, if you follow your own thoughts, that would make you a 'leader' and a 'follower', no?
(Not to mention fully utilising ALL the power that God/Nature has given you. - You may notice that all the 'great' names of the past have this attribute, and it is not 'arrogance' to try and be your best, it is your right as a Human being.)
(K)Not trying to 'convert' anyone here, by the way. I just try to share an alternative way of thinking and viewing 'Life'(it works for me!). 'Bibles' and 'theories' are for people who cannot trust their own inner Truth, IMO. Good to learn from; Bad to accept as 'law'.
Yet, there are also great dangers in this thinking, so must not be taken 'lightly'. You could also put 'Hitler' in this 'bracket', or indeed become such, which is why we have to approach ourselves, and the rest of 'Life', with compassion. Power, of ANY kind, needs to be used wisely, and with caution, to stop it being abused, and Compassion is the antithesis of abuse. There is much wisdom in Compassion.
We are all born of the same stuff as the 'men' who try to get us to hand over our power, by believing in 'them'. All we need is fear (mostly of ourselves!), and a pen to tick the right box with...
I must stress that any personal changes (in 'world perception') can only come from the individual. It took me a few years to accept that about myself - it was the only honest 'way' I could find. I found that I only had one problem, in reality, and that was how I reacted to the 'outside world'.
Regards,
Steve.
My mistake. The Clampett quote was a seconding of your quote - I agreed! I was just commenting on the difficulty of reconciliation.
The Marley quote I took correctly. We are on the same page!
jbp.s. For the future, if I disagree with something you will surely know beyond doubt. (I do it nicely though.)
In that case, it's MY mistake then!
I actually think that its ok to disagree from time to time. It shouldn't mean all out war. We all have a unique perspective, and a pretty poor acceptance of each others' understanding of how language should work, so no surprises, really!
New ideas come from disagreements, so they can't all be bad! (Is it possible that people who resist changes are people who were not allowed to disagree as children? - check out the mirror of time, folks!)
As long as we're on the same page, it doesn't matter how we get there!
"We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are"...
QUOTE
That's what we are. Some of us follow. Some of us lead. We are not completely followers. We are not completely leaders. We don't follow science. We follow men of science. We don't follow religion. We follow men of faith. Science and Religion are not things. They are men. They are us.
- We follow ideas. We are just as capable of ideas as the next 'man'. Breaking the stale-mate of 'following' takes a belief in yourself, and not some other 'man'. Whatever his thoughts, they will be second-hand by the time they reach you...
However, if you follow your own thoughts, that would make you a 'leader' and a 'follower', no?
(Not to mention fully utilising ALL the power that God/Nature has given you.
- You may notice that all the 'great' names of the past have this attribute, and it is not 'arrogance' to try and be your best, it is your right as a Human being.)(K)Not trying to 'convert' anyone here, by the way. I just try to share an alternative way of thinking and viewing 'Life'(it works for me!). 'Bibles' and 'theories' are for people who cannot trust their own inner Truth, IMO. Good to learn from; Bad to accept as 'law'.
Yet, there are also great dangers in this thinking, so must not be taken 'lightly'. You could also put 'Hitler' in this 'bracket', or indeed become such, which is why we have to approach ourselves, and the rest of 'Life', with compassion. Power, of ANY kind, needs to be used wisely, and with caution, to stop it being abused, and Compassion is the antithesis of abuse. There is much wisdom in Compassion.
We are all born of the same stuff as the 'men' who try to get us to hand over our power, by believing in 'them'. All we need is fear (mostly of ourselves!), and a pen to tick the right box with...
I must stress that any personal changes (in 'world perception') can only come from the individual. It took me a few years to accept that about myself - it was the only honest 'way' I could find. I found that I only had one problem, in reality, and that was how I reacted to the 'outside world'.
Regards,
Steve.
People inevitably are a product of at least their parents, if not society. There's little danger of someone not being follower of others. The languages we communicate with were taught to us, most everyone has to interact with others simply to survive and definitely to reproduce. So the large part of what anyone is, is a product of others (even ignoring genetics).
This fact becomes more obvious when you compare different isolated areas of the world and compare culture, knowledge, genetics and most any other factor - people share similar traits they inherited from others.
To me it seems more important to assure there's something that differentiates me from "everyone else". Sometimes you can see this phenomenon go to an extreme, where many people want to be unique and individual to such an extent that they all dress alike to show how non-comformist they all are.
Now it's fine to be part of a group and work with others or share social perspectives etc. There are times everyone needs assistance, as well as times when we're learning and need guidance, or simply times when you'd prefer to relax and group up with others under some leadership. Some things are easier to do in a group (a company benefits by allowing people to specialize in what they do best while benefitting from the synergy).
But there are also many problems that can spread throughout such large social structures and like a plague, without an ability for people to extricate themselves from social relationships they view as harmful, the damage can spread quickly. I mean "extricate" in more of a mental sense not physical one. We all inevitably live in the world, but that doesn't mean we must inevitable be of it and blow whichever way the prevailing social fashions are pointed. Good ideas spread. If you see a better direction, try heading that way. If things look better in that direction, others will eventually follow ... the unity that results from this is natural and desirable, as opposed to a unity that was enforced simply to be unified. Just like many people naturally get married. The benefit isn't in treating it like a condition of mutual slavery or imprisonment, but instead it's a mutual value gained by the synergy of combining different abilities in pursuit of a shared goal. It's ironic that a marriage is stronger and more binding, the looser the chains placed on it.
of someone not being follower of others. The languages we communicate with were taught to us, most everyone has to interact with others simply to survive and definitely to reproduce. So the large part of what anyone is, is a product of others (even ignoring genetics).This fact becomes more obvious when you compare different isolated areas of the world and compare culture, knowledge, genetics and most any other factor - people share similar traits they inherited from others.
To me it seems more important to assure there's something that differentiates me from "everyone else". Sometimes you can see this phenomenon go to an extreme, where many people want to be unique and individual to such an extent that they all dress alike to show how non-comformist they all are.
Now it's fine to be part of a group and work with others or share social perspectives etc. There are times everyone needs assistance, as well as times when we're learning and need guidance, or simply times when you'd prefer to relax and group up with others under some leadership. Some things are easier to do in a group (a company benefits by allowing people to specialize in what they do best while benefitting from the synergy).
But there are also many problems that can spread throughout such large social structures and like a plague, without an ability for people to extricate themselves from social relationships they view as harmful, the damage can spread quickly. I mean "extricate" in more of a mental sense not physical one. We all inevitably live in the world, but that doesn't mean we must inevitable be of it and blow whichever way the prevailing social fashions are pointed. Good ideas spread. If you see a better direction, try heading that way. If things look better in that direction, others will eventually follow ... the unity that results from this is natural and desirable, as opposed to a unity that was enforced simply to be unified. Just like many people naturally get married. The benefit isn't in treating it like a condition of mutual slavery or imprisonment, but instead it's a mutual value gained by the synergy of combining different abilities in pursuit of a shared goal. It's ironic that a marriage is stronger and more binding, the looser the chains placed on it.
QUOTE (StevenA+May 17 2006, 08:57 PM)
People inevitably are a product of at least their parents, if not society. There's little danger of someone not being follower of others. The languages we communicate with were taught to us, most everyone has to interact with others simply to survive and definitely to reproduce. So the large part of what anyone is, is a product of others (even ignoring genetics).
This fact becomes more obvious when you compare different isolated areas of the world and compare culture, knowledge, genetics and most any other factor - people share similar traits they inherited from others.
To me it seems more important to assure there's something that differentiates me from "everyone else". Sometimes you can see this phenomenon go to an extreme, where many people want to be unique and individual to such an extent that they all dress alike to show how non-comformist they all are.
Now it's fine to be part of a group and work with others or share social perspectives etc. There are times everyone needs assistance, as well as times when we're learning and need guidance, or simply times when you'd prefer to relax and group up with others under some leadership. Some things are easier to do in a group (a company benefits by allowing people to specialize in what they do best while benefitting from the synergy).
But there are also many problems that can spread throughout such large social structures and like a plague, without an ability for people to extricate themselves from social relationships they view as harmful, the damage can spread quickly. I mean "extricate" in more of a mental sense not physical one. We all inevitably live in the world, but that doesn't mean we must inevitable be of it and blow whichever way the prevailing social fashions are pointed. Good ideas spread. If you see a better direction, try heading that way. If things look better in that direction, others will eventually follow ... the unity that results from this is natural and desirable, as opposed to a unity that was enforced simply to be unified. Just like many people naturally get married. The benefit isn't in treating it like a condition of mutual slavery or imprisonment, but instead it's a mutual value gained by the synergy of combining different abilities in pursuit of a shared goal. It's ironic that a marriage is stronger and more binding, the looser the chains placed on it.
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
I would just point out that, what if your parents are 'Hitler', or your society is corrupting itself into oblivion with all its self abuse?
...Or what if your parents were 'Hitler' disguised as 'Churchill', and your society is slowly poisoning itself to death?
...Or, how about 'Hitler' disguised as 'science versus religion', and your society is actually part of a three-dimensional sphere of the holographic mirage of vibrating waves, merely slowing from their own Instantaneousness, within an infinite 'Space'?
(Yes folks, Infinity sucks!!)
Or knot?
of someone not being follower of others. The languages we communicate with were taught to us, most everyone has to interact with others simply to survive and definitely to reproduce. So the large part of what anyone is, is a product of others (even ignoring genetics).This fact becomes more obvious when you compare different isolated areas of the world and compare culture, knowledge, genetics and most any other factor - people share similar traits they inherited from others.
To me it seems more important to assure there's something that differentiates me from "everyone else". Sometimes you can see this phenomenon go to an extreme, where many people want to be unique and individual to such an extent that they all dress alike to show how non-comformist they all are.
Now it's fine to be part of a group and work with others or share social perspectives etc. There are times everyone needs assistance, as well as times when we're learning and need guidance, or simply times when you'd prefer to relax and group up with others under some leadership. Some things are easier to do in a group (a company benefits by allowing people to specialize in what they do best while benefitting from the synergy).
But there are also many problems that can spread throughout such large social structures and like a plague, without an ability for people to extricate themselves from social relationships they view as harmful, the damage can spread quickly. I mean "extricate" in more of a mental sense not physical one. We all inevitably live in the world, but that doesn't mean we must inevitable be of it and blow whichever way the prevailing social fashions are pointed. Good ideas spread. If you see a better direction, try heading that way. If things look better in that direction, others will eventually follow ... the unity that results from this is natural and desirable, as opposed to a unity that was enforced simply to be unified. Just like many people naturally get married. The benefit isn't in treating it like a condition of mutual slavery or imprisonment, but instead it's a mutual value gained by the synergy of combining different abilities in pursuit of a shared goal. It's ironic that a marriage is stronger and more binding, the looser the chains placed on it.
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
I would just point out that, what if your parents are 'Hitler', or your society is corrupting itself into oblivion with all its self abuse?
...Or what if your parents were 'Hitler' disguised as 'Churchill', and your society is slowly poisoning itself to death?
...Or, how about 'Hitler' disguised as 'science versus religion', and your society is actually part of a three-dimensional sphere of the holographic mirage of vibrating waves, merely slowing from their own Instantaneousness, within an infinite 'Space'?
(Yes folks, Infinity sucks!!)
Or knot?
QUOTE (Knot of this world+May 17 2006, 10:49 PM)
I would just point out that, what if your parents are 'Hitler', or your society is corrupting itself into oblivion with all its self abuse?
...Or what if your parents were 'Hitler' disguised as 'Churchill', and your society is slowly poisoning itself to death?
Then you keep a safe distance and hope things implode instead of exploding.
Dunno ... maybe rebooting would work? If there's no patch or update available for downloading, maybe return the cosmos back to the manufacturer for a refund?
...Or what if your parents were 'Hitler' disguised as 'Churchill', and your society is slowly poisoning itself to death?
Then you keep a safe distance and hope things implode instead of exploding.
QUOTE
...Or, how about 'Hitler' disguised as 'science versus religion', and your society is actually part of a three-dimensional sphere of the holographic mirage of vibrating waves, merely slowing from their own Instantaneousness, within an infinite 'Space'?
Dunno ... maybe rebooting would work? If there's no patch or update available for downloading, maybe return the cosmos back to the manufacturer for a refund?
Knot,
Ideas made by men.
Ideas made by men.
However, if you follow your own thoughts,
Your thoughts may not be just your own. It may be influenced by the society which is made up of people.
I respect that.
QUOTE
We follow ideas
Ideas made by men.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We follow ideas |
Ideas made by men.
However, if you follow your own thoughts,
Your thoughts may not be just your own. It may be influenced by the society which is made up of people.
QUOTE
Not trying to 'convert' anyone here, by the way. I just try to share an alternative way of thinking and viewing 'Life'(it works for me!)
I respect that.
Hi howtothinklikegod,
Thanks for the mutual show of respect.
Respect is a good thing when we know where it is due, but can also be subject to abuse, (Is respect due, to an abusive authority? - I think not.) so that is why I advocate knowing ourselves, personally, so that we don't blindly follow the abusive kind! (We can also break the chain of repetitive violence taught to us in childhood, in this way.)
This is Respect for ourselves, and our own levels of consciousness, which we must also have...
So, respect to you also!
k.
Thanks for the mutual show of respect.
Respect is a good thing when we know where it is due, but can also be subject to abuse, (Is respect due, to an abusive authority? - I think not.) so that is why I advocate knowing ourselves, personally, so that we don't blindly follow the abusive kind! (We can also break the chain of repetitive violence taught to us in childhood, in this way.)
This is Respect for ourselves, and our own levels of consciousness, which we must also have...
So, respect to you also!
k.
Hello, everybody, mind, and spirit!
1) Regarding this thread, I think this week has been a good one! Especially, we have a profound observation from Howtothinklikegod:
Congratulations, Howtothinklikegod! However, it would be interesting to see how you would elaborate that statement further. Remember, this is a good forum for us to train and express our philosophies of Life and Mind or Science and Religion. So, anything goes, as long as we can intelligently and sensibly justify our human observations and arguments!
2)
Congratulations, Howtothinklikegod! However, it would be interesting to see how you would elaborate that statement further. Remember, this is a good forum for us to train and express our philosophies of Life and Mind or Science and Religion. So, anything goes, as long as we can intelligently and sensibly justify our human observations and arguments!
2) Mong, thanks for the kind comments.
You’re welcome, Steve—and same to you, too! Furthermore,
I think that is a profound statement! Remember, we talked about Scientism vs. Religionism over the other thread: Why do Creationists pick on Evolution? Or, Evolutionism vs. Creationism senselessly! As modern human beings ourselves, we must now not follow that kind of thinking (either in Creationism or Evolutionism, in particular) without actually exercising our own critical thinking in Science and Religion ourselves, and enabling us to understand and advance the True Reality of Humanity worldwide.
By the way, the initial 13 (US) colonies that rose and revolted against the British empire were the settlers from England; that’s why English remained the US language after its war of Independence. Nonetheless, the US had since inherited the British imperial ambition, especially at a time when opportunities came knocking at the turn of the 20th century!
I would characterize the 2 World Wars as the wars of the European empires, which had precipitated into Hitler (who tried to build nazi Germany as an empire like Napoleon did) vs. Churchill (who was only a defender of the then British empire); and further culminated in the mid-20th century US Capitalism vs. the Soviet Communism, or the then cold war until 1989, when the absolute Soviet power corrupted and collapsed absolutely—especially intellectually and spiritually, internally!
Whereas in a Third World view (especially the archaic Islamic worldview) the US has since become the only remaining world imperial-colonial power, that is still persistently interfering all aspects of their lives, especially religious and political—a monolithic religious belief system, that so far has not been able to evolve or adapt to the zeitgeist of Modernity that we all learn and appreciate today!
3)
I think that is a profound statement! Remember, we talked about Scientism vs. Religionism over the other thread: Why do Creationists pick on Evolution? Or, Evolutionism vs. Creationism senselessly! As modern human beings ourselves, we must now not follow that kind of thinking (either in Creationism or Evolutionism, in particular) without actually exercising our own critical thinking in Science and Religion ourselves, and enabling us to understand and advance the True Reality of Humanity worldwide.
By the way, the initial 13 (US) colonies that rose and revolted against the British empire were the settlers from England; that’s why English remained the US language after its war of Independence. Nonetheless, the US had since inherited the British imperial ambition, especially at a time when opportunities came knocking at the turn of the 20th century!
I would characterize the 2 World Wars as the wars of the European empires, which had precipitated into Hitler (who tried to build nazi Germany as an empire like Napoleon did) vs. Churchill (who was only a defender of the then British empire); and further culminated in the mid-20th century US Capitalism vs. the Soviet Communism, or the then cold war until 1989, when the absolute Soviet power corrupted and collapsed absolutely—especially intellectually and spiritually, internally!
Whereas in a Third World view (especially the archaic Islamic worldview) the US has since become the only remaining world imperial-colonial power, that is still persistently interfering all aspects of their lives, especially religious and political—a monolithic religious belief system, that so far has not been able to evolve or adapt to the zeitgeist of Modernity that we all learn and appreciate today!
3) The key as I see it is to find a science that DETECTS Spirit, let alone defines it.
Well, Joe, it all depends on what you mean by “spirit.” In neuroscience, it is a “thought-memory process” that is generated by our own electrochemistry in our brain. In religion, it is metaphysically interpreted as an amorphous entity or deity or spirit, first experienced by our tribal shamans or witches when they were in trance—a psychophenomenal state that is generally induced as well as altered by the varied psychotropic drugs, such as, hashish, peyote, pot, LSD, etc. However, in our modern cultural terminology, a spirit means a persona that is being projected by our own writing and reading in this thread! I hope these explanations, scientific and religious, will satisfy your curiosity on spirit.
4)
Steven, I think your apprehension of a Unity being one that is enforced or coerced simply to be unified as conformity or blind obedience in all organized religions—historically and even today—is well founded and taken. Whereas with a Modern Mind—one which is coalesced by our own critical thinking, learning, and understanding of Science and Religion—we are unlikely or voluntarily to follow any line of thinking blindly, nowadays; unless we are growing up in the still varied prejudiced environments, such as, racism, slavery, religious intolerance, inhumanity, etc.
Here is an observation: Not all nations on Earth have had obtained a Modern World mentality, especially, pluralism in religions, and multiculturalism in their diverse socio-intellectual context. Even in a most Modern Nation, such as the US today, there are still leaders who are absent minded, both in Modern (as in Science) and Archaic (as in Religion). To wit, the ill or no or myopic or overzealous planning for the “liberation and democracy” war in Iraq in 2003, is a case in point!
As such, hopefully, through this internet process of Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion, we shall be able to raise more consciousness and concern of our Modern World affairs that have had all been affecting our Humanity as a whole—an evermore universal, interconnected, than before as a Unity—on this unique planet Earth, in our life and for our life!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy thinking and scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 5/21/6usct1:28p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006
By the way, the initial 13 (US) colonies that rose and revolted against the British empire were the settlers from England; that’s why English remained the US language after its war of Independence. Nonetheless, the US had since inherited the British imperial ambition, especially at a time when opportunities came knocking at the turn of the 20th century!
I would characterize the 2 World Wars as the wars of the European empires, which had precipitated into Hitler (who tried to build nazi Germany as an empire like Napoleon did) vs. Churchill (who was only a defender of the then British empire); and further culminated in the mid-20th century US Capitalism vs. the Soviet Communism, or the then cold war until 1989, when the absolute Soviet power corrupted and collapsed absolutely—especially intellectually and spiritually, internally!
Whereas in a Third World view (especially the archaic Islamic worldview) the US has since become the only remaining world imperial-colonial power, that is still persistently interfering all aspects of their lives, especially religious and political—a monolithic religious belief system, that so far has not been able to evolve or adapt to the zeitgeist of Modernity that we all learn and appreciate today!
Ha! Those crazy old brits! They just love to beat themselves up. How very.......eccentric? (Yes, we had better use that word, just in case 007 is online!)
Not sure if I'm so comfortable using 'modern' and 'empire' in the same sentence. I wouldn't want to encourage anyone...
Still, not one to deny the truth, I guess i'll just have to admit the possibility, and hope that lions become extinct before 'they' start building amphitheaters again!? Or, I could change my name to Androcles and hope for the best? (Maybe John Cleese?)
However, i've no fear as i'm not Christian. In fact, i'd say my 'leanings' are toward Zen Buddhism/Tao, but the last guy to try and bring the East to the West got nailed to a cross, and had all his words twisted, so I think i'll stay 'free' on that for now...
Hey, isn't the internet great? Nowadays we don't have to go trawling through the toolshed, searching for the hammer and nails. We can just click a 'cross' at the top of the screen, et voila... That's YOU sacrificed, matey!!!
Sorry. You caught me in a silly mood, for some reason! (Yeah, I know. 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.' cliche, cliche, cliche...)
k?
To begin with, I think fear is the great divider of science and religion...
Yep! Fear of the unknown (just like all the other animals)...
I say, Let's make it known!
k.
1) Regarding this thread, I think this week has been a good one! Especially, we have a profound observation from Howtothinklikegod:
QUOTE
Science and Religion are not things. They are men. They are us.
Congratulations, Howtothinklikegod! However, it would be interesting to see how you would elaborate that statement further. Remember, this is a good forum for us to train and express our philosophies of Life and Mind or Science and Religion. So, anything goes, as long as we can intelligently and sensibly justify our human observations and arguments!
2)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Science and Religion are not things. They are men. They are us. |
Congratulations, Howtothinklikegod! However, it would be interesting to see how you would elaborate that statement further. Remember, this is a good forum for us to train and express our philosophies of Life and Mind or Science and Religion. So, anything goes, as long as we can intelligently and sensibly justify our human observations and arguments!
2) Mong, thanks for the kind comments.
You’re welcome, Steve—and same to you, too! Furthermore,
QUOTE
We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are. We can have our own thoughts, and indeed, our very 'purpose' for being alive is to experience 'Life' in our own unique way, and relay this information back to the ongoing evolutionary consciousness...
I think that is a profound statement! Remember, we talked about Scientism vs. Religionism over the other thread: Why do Creationists pick on Evolution? Or, Evolutionism vs. Creationism senselessly! As modern human beings ourselves, we must now not follow that kind of thinking (either in Creationism or Evolutionism, in particular) without actually exercising our own critical thinking in Science and Religion ourselves, and enabling us to understand and advance the True Reality of Humanity worldwide.
By the way, the initial 13 (US) colonies that rose and revolted against the British empire were the settlers from England; that’s why English remained the US language after its war of Independence. Nonetheless, the US had since inherited the British imperial ambition, especially at a time when opportunities came knocking at the turn of the 20th century!
I would characterize the 2 World Wars as the wars of the European empires, which had precipitated into Hitler (who tried to build nazi Germany as an empire like Napoleon did) vs. Churchill (who was only a defender of the then British empire); and further culminated in the mid-20th century US Capitalism vs. the Soviet Communism, or the then cold war until 1989, when the absolute Soviet power corrupted and collapsed absolutely—especially intellectually and spiritually, internally!
Whereas in a Third World view (especially the archaic Islamic worldview) the US has since become the only remaining world imperial-colonial power, that is still persistently interfering all aspects of their lives, especially religious and political—a monolithic religious belief system, that so far has not been able to evolve or adapt to the zeitgeist of Modernity that we all learn and appreciate today!
3)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We 'follow' science, or 'follow' religion, and this leaves us in the psychological stale-mate of only knowing how to 'follow'. What we all need to know, as individuals, is that it is ok to be who we are. We can have our own thoughts, and indeed, our very 'purpose' for being alive is to experience 'Life' in our own unique way, and relay this information back to the ongoing evolutionary consciousness... |
I think that is a profound statement! Remember, we talked about Scientism vs. Religionism over the other thread: Why do Creationists pick on Evolution? Or, Evolutionism vs. Creationism senselessly! As modern human beings ourselves, we must now not follow that kind of thinking (either in Creationism or Evolutionism, in particular) without actually exercising our own critical thinking in Science and Religion ourselves, and enabling us to understand and advance the True Reality of Humanity worldwide.
By the way, the initial 13 (US) colonies that rose and revolted against the British empire were the settlers from England; that’s why English remained the US language after its war of Independence. Nonetheless, the US had since inherited the British imperial ambition, especially at a time when opportunities came knocking at the turn of the 20th century!
I would characterize the 2 World Wars as the wars of the European empires, which had precipitated into Hitler (who tried to build nazi Germany as an empire like Napoleon did) vs. Churchill (who was only a defender of the then British empire); and further culminated in the mid-20th century US Capitalism vs. the Soviet Communism, or the then cold war until 1989, when the absolute Soviet power corrupted and collapsed absolutely—especially intellectually and spiritually, internally!
Whereas in a Third World view (especially the archaic Islamic worldview) the US has since become the only remaining world imperial-colonial power, that is still persistently interfering all aspects of their lives, especially religious and political—a monolithic religious belief system, that so far has not been able to evolve or adapt to the zeitgeist of Modernity that we all learn and appreciate today!
3) The key as I see it is to find a science that DETECTS Spirit, let alone defines it.
Well, Joe, it all depends on what you mean by “spirit.” In neuroscience, it is a “thought-memory process” that is generated by our own electrochemistry in our brain. In religion, it is metaphysically interpreted as an amorphous entity or deity or spirit, first experienced by our tribal shamans or witches when they were in trance—a psychophenomenal state that is generally induced as well as altered by the varied psychotropic drugs, such as, hashish, peyote, pot, LSD, etc. However, in our modern cultural terminology, a spirit means a persona that is being projected by our own writing and reading in this thread! I hope these explanations, scientific and religious, will satisfy your curiosity on spirit.
4)
QUOTE
Good ideas spread. If you see a better direction, try heading that way. If things look better in that direction, others will eventually follow ... the unity that results from this is natural and desirable, as opposed to a unity that was enforced simply to be unified.
Steven, I think your apprehension of a Unity being one that is enforced or coerced simply to be unified as conformity or blind obedience in all organized religions—historically and even today—is well founded and taken. Whereas with a Modern Mind—one which is coalesced by our own critical thinking, learning, and understanding of Science and Religion—we are unlikely or voluntarily to follow any line of thinking blindly, nowadays; unless we are growing up in the still varied prejudiced environments, such as, racism, slavery, religious intolerance, inhumanity, etc.
Here is an observation: Not all nations on Earth have had obtained a Modern World mentality, especially, pluralism in religions, and multiculturalism in their diverse socio-intellectual context. Even in a most Modern Nation, such as the US today, there are still leaders who are absent minded, both in Modern (as in Science) and Archaic (as in Religion). To wit, the ill or no or myopic or overzealous planning for the “liberation and democracy” war in Iraq in 2003, is a case in point!
As such, hopefully, through this internet process of Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion, we shall be able to raise more consciousness and concern of our Modern World affairs that have had all been affecting our Humanity as a whole—an evermore universal, interconnected, than before as a Unity—on this unique planet Earth, in our life and for our life!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy thinking and scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 5/21/6usct1:28p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006
QUOTE (Mong H Tan+ PhD,May 21 2006, 06:28 PM)
By the way, the initial 13 (US) colonies that rose and revolted against the British empire were the settlers from England; that’s why English remained the US language after its war of Independence. Nonetheless, the US had since inherited the British imperial ambition, especially at a time when opportunities came knocking at the turn of the 20th century!
I would characterize the 2 World Wars as the wars of the European empires, which had precipitated into Hitler (who tried to build nazi Germany as an empire like Napoleon did) vs. Churchill (who was only a defender of the then British empire); and further culminated in the mid-20th century US Capitalism vs. the Soviet Communism, or the then cold war until 1989, when the absolute Soviet power corrupted and collapsed absolutely—especially intellectually and spiritually, internally!
Whereas in a Third World view (especially the archaic Islamic worldview) the US has since become the only remaining world imperial-colonial power, that is still persistently interfering all aspects of their lives, especially religious and political—a monolithic religious belief system, that so far has not been able to evolve or adapt to the zeitgeist of Modernity that we all learn and appreciate today!
Ha! Those crazy old brits! They just love to beat themselves up. How very.......eccentric? (Yes, we had better use that word, just in case 007 is online!)
Not sure if I'm so comfortable using 'modern' and 'empire' in the same sentence. I wouldn't want to encourage anyone...
Still, not one to deny the truth, I guess i'll just have to admit the possibility, and hope that lions become extinct before 'they' start building amphitheaters again!? Or, I could change my name to Androcles and hope for the best? (Maybe John Cleese?)
However, i've no fear as i'm not Christian. In fact, i'd say my 'leanings' are toward Zen Buddhism/Tao, but the last guy to try and bring the East to the West got nailed to a cross, and had all his words twisted, so I think i'll stay 'free' on that for now...
Hey, isn't the internet great? Nowadays we don't have to go trawling through the toolshed, searching for the hammer and nails. We can just click a 'cross' at the top of the screen, et voila... That's YOU sacrificed, matey!!!
Sorry. You caught me in a silly mood, for some reason! (Yeah, I know. 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.' cliche, cliche, cliche...)
k?
Thanks mong!
Yeah. I'll try to elaborate my statement but I think I have done that already by my previous posts. This is really a good forum to express your philosophies. At the same time, it's also a good place to argue with someone but be careful who you're talkin to.
QUOTE
Congratulations, Howtothinklikegod! However, it would be interesting to see how you would elaborate that statement further. Remember, this is a good forum for us to train and express our philosophies of Life and Mind or Science and Religion. So, anything goes, as long as we can intelligently and sensibly justify our human observations and arguments!
Yeah. I'll try to elaborate my statement but I think I have done that already by my previous posts. This is really a good forum to express your philosophies. At the same time, it's also a good place to argue with someone but be careful who you're talkin to.
Greetings all,
What a nice thread.
A couple of things I'd like to add to the pot for stirring.
(My own thoughts and what ifs )
To begin with, I think fear is the great divider of science and religion. Each of us must cope with the fact that we are not in 'control' of much of reality. As a result we've tried many methods of explaining reality, but so far all have fallen short of the overall task. When a new scientific theory is published there's always a time of transition where some of the "old dogs" don't want to learn "new tricks" because it's difficult to hear that your life's work was based on an assumption that has been proved false. The same holds true for religion, where a new text has been unearthed that obliterates the tenants of the faith of your parents. In both situations the offended party usually tries to justify their own beliefs using either the "faith" blanket, the blindness blanket (refusing to test for oneself), or something equally as effective. So what it really boils down to is why are we so afraid of being wrong? What if we can never know the "Truth" because it's beyond the intellectual conception? Is that really so bad?
That doesn't mean that think we should stop trying, it just means that I think we should stop worrying about being "right", and worry more about the nature of the adventure that is Life.
Ideally we have an open mind, and our concept of reality is as fluid as the probes that delve it, but that is sadly not always the case. To reconcile this I think we should first observe the fact that we are already mutually dependent on each other, so in a sense we are already one. We each depend on the energy we consume to function (food,air,water, etc...), which in turn relied on another entity for it's wellbeing (farmer, store owner, truck driver, etc ... ), which in turn relied on something else, and on, and on. So we need each other to function the way we do. After all, I can't make a car, house, gas, computer, or monitor from scratch so I depend on all the people that make up the long string that leads back to me typing on this keyboard. From that perspective it's a little easier to see humanity as a large functioning body that has a goal. Not that I claim to know that goal, but it does appear as though we're working toward something.
Maybe I'm just a romantic, and all this is just useless speculation on my part, but it's made my perspective reality a very happy one
Oh, and Mong, what's your take on remote viewing?
What a nice thread.
A couple of things I'd like to add to the pot for stirring.
(My own thoughts and what ifs )
To begin with, I think fear is the great divider of science and religion. Each of us must cope with the fact that we are not in 'control' of much of reality. As a result we've tried many methods of explaining reality, but so far all have fallen short of the overall task. When a new scientific theory is published there's always a time of transition where some of the "old dogs" don't want to learn "new tricks" because it's difficult to hear that your life's work was based on an assumption that has been proved false. The same holds true for religion, where a new text has been unearthed that obliterates the tenants of the faith of your parents. In both situations the offended party usually tries to justify their own beliefs using either the "faith" blanket, the blindness blanket (refusing to test for oneself), or something equally as effective. So what it really boils down to is why are we so afraid of being wrong? What if we can never know the "Truth" because it's beyond the intellectual conception? Is that really so bad?
That doesn't mean that think we should stop trying, it just means that I think we should stop worrying about being "right", and worry more about the nature of the adventure that is Life.
Ideally we have an open mind, and our concept of reality is as fluid as the probes that delve it, but that is sadly not always the case. To reconcile this I think we should first observe the fact that we are already mutually dependent on each other, so in a sense we are already one. We each depend on the energy we consume to function (food,air,water, etc...), which in turn relied on another entity for it's wellbeing (farmer, store owner, truck driver, etc ... ), which in turn relied on something else, and on, and on. So we need each other to function the way we do. After all, I can't make a car, house, gas, computer, or monitor from scratch so I depend on all the people that make up the long string that leads back to me typing on this keyboard. From that perspective it's a little easier to see humanity as a large functioning body that has a goal. Not that I claim to know that goal, but it does appear as though we're working toward something.
Maybe I'm just a romantic, and all this is just useless speculation on my part, but it's made my perspective reality a very happy one
Oh, and Mong, what's your take on remote viewing?
Hi all,
I think the psychology movement will be the decisive thinking of this era. We simply have to know what we are doing.
The unconscious and the 'subjective (personal) belief' has been responsible for so much violence and destruction, and now we have reached a point where our entire environment is threatened.
This is truly insanity.
Nothing else in existence destroys its own environment, because it knows it will cease to exist if it does!
Here's the big question of our time..
"Are we now ready to commit suicide, and take everything else with us?"
The 'religious' will have to face their 'God', and explain to Him why they have been content to let His creation destroy itself, and the 'scientific' will have to admit their unconscious insanity, re-discover what the word 'Honesty' means, or just 'give up'.
Either way, the questions are environmental, while we still have the ability to ask anything at all...
It's up to us, as individuals, to put our energies where they are needed most. This means that we have to know ourselves, as Honestly and comprehensively as we can. The invention of 'psychology' has been a necessary counter-balance to our unconscious insanity, and will be more needed as we continue to ignore or deny Reality.
k.
I think the psychology movement will be the decisive thinking of this era. We simply have to know what we are doing.
The unconscious and the 'subjective (personal) belief' has been responsible for so much violence and destruction, and now we have reached a point where our entire environment is threatened.
This is truly insanity.
Nothing else in existence destroys its own environment, because it knows it will cease to exist if it does!
Here's the big question of our time..
"Are we now ready to commit suicide, and take everything else with us?"
The 'religious' will have to face their 'God', and explain to Him why they have been content to let His creation destroy itself, and the 'scientific' will have to admit their unconscious insanity, re-discover what the word 'Honesty' means, or just 'give up'.
Either way, the questions are environmental, while we still have the ability to ask anything at all...
It's up to us, as individuals, to put our energies where they are needed most. This means that we have to know ourselves, as Honestly and comprehensively as we can. The invention of 'psychology' has been a necessary counter-balance to our unconscious insanity, and will be more needed as we continue to ignore or deny Reality.
k.
QUOTE (SENT+May 30 2006, 05:15 PM)
To begin with, I think fear is the great divider of science and religion...
Yep! Fear of the unknown (just like all the other animals)...
I say, Let's make it known!
k.
Greetings, everybody, mind, and spirit!
Very nice postings above! For me, it’s been a very busy learning couple of weeks, even just trying to explore and follow the threads listed within this dynamic Physorg.com; which I first stumbled upon on April 18, 2006.
Since last week, I discovered there is another active General Science News forum in these pages; and I was totally absorbed by several ongoing threads therein, such as, Idetic Imagery (May 28 and 29), Where is the scientific proof that Evolution has taken place? (May 30 and 31), Cancer Cell (May 31 and June 1), and another fine thread Thoughts on CS/ID (May 25) within this Creation/Evolution forum.
Elsewhere, I discovered a new posting (May 18) that came after my (April 2) posting in the GuardianUK, in opposing to the idea of enlisting the British renowned atheist Richard Dawkins’ bestseller The Selfish Gene (1976) as a science canon!
For your convenience, let me present all these postings (including one that I responded on June 1) herein, with minor editings (as there are several US keystrokes are incompactable with the GuardianUK files); and I would like you all be the judge, in this matter of importance and consequences—as far as Science education and integrity in the UK is concerned; let alone the now worldwide phenomenon, whereupon we are increasingly facing the rise of religious fundamentalism (Religionism and ID neocreationism) as well as Scientism and Evolutionism, as exemplified by the work of Dawkins’ above, and the Daniel Dennett’s bestseller Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (February 2006), which I’ve had also characterized as an anti-Darwinism Scientism, as well as anti-Religionism—wherein Dennett has had implied Religion as a parasitism, blindly in attempt to resurrect the faulty theory of meme (or myth that I would prefer to call), in the metaphysical wordplay that was initially conceived by Dawkins in his first book The Selfish Gene, over 30 years ago!
Selfish Genes are killing science… [Comment is free GuardianUK; May 18]
Fearing a US-style revival of religion as an alternative to science, the Royal Society recently decided to oppose the teaching of Creationism and intelligent design in UK schools. Some of the same celebrity scientists backing this position are also speaking out against the closure of university science departments, despite evidence that there is an ongoing decline in the number of school leavers wanting to study their courses. It is time they saw the connection.
A few years ago, a professor in a UK university contacted my research team to see whether we could help reform their increasingly unpopular physical science undergraduate degrees. We suggested what we felt were some common sense reforms making the relevance of the science to social and environmental problems explicit from the first lecture, and sacrificing some of the rote-learning of “basic” facts for a more problem-based synthetic approach.
Our proposals were never acted on. We heard reports that les eminences grises had dismissed them as a step backwards. They would rather stick to the traditional approach, and hope the students eventually saw the light. This year their Vice-chancellor announced that recruitment had nose-dived further, and that their whole department was to be closed.
Though the lack of attractive and well-paying careers may be one cause, the fall in demand for science courses is also linked to a sense among young people of a moral emptiness in traditional science.
For much of the twentieth century new generations struggled, often against the odds, to have a career in science because they believed that more science would mean greater social progress. Today’s youth see a political system that seems unable to address rising poverty or runaway climate change. They rightly conclude that solving scientific puzzles or inventing new gadgets alone is unlikely to save the world. This is where religions such as Christianity and Islam, with their strong emphasis on social justice, are coming back to haunt the rationalists.
The teaching of Biblical accounts of humanity’s origins as having an equal factual basis to biological evolution is, as Britain’s teachers voted this spring, nonsensical. Yet few of the sofa scientists acknowledge the need to understand the causes of the revival of Creationism, not merely condemn its consequences.
The quasi-religious belief in the selfish gene by the political class in the UK also helped lay the ground for a return to Creationism. Richard Dawkins justifies unfettered free-market capitalism as if it naturally follows from the laws of nature; and despite New Labour’s tinkering, these ultra-Darwinists have helped create a culture that values the pursuit of individual gain above all else.
So should young people believe that selfishness or solidarity is at the heart of humanity? In contrast to their prominence elsewhere, I didn’t see many selfish gene advocates taking a leading role in Make Poverty History last year. Like the then-editor of Science, Daniel Koshland, maybe they think poverty is “in the genes.” Economics used to be called the “dismal science,” but now it seems biology is in danger of joining it.
Too many academic scientists who make a virtue of the amoral nature of scientific inquiry when appearing in the mass media. Yet most young people realise that science conducted without a valuing of the very un-selfish concept of universal human rights ultimately leads to programmes such as eugenics and the cold logic of Nazi gas chambers. All sciences will have to become less dismal, and more moral, if they are to inspire young people again.
There are some exciting new initiatives that seem to be moving in this direction, such as the University of Plymouth’s Holistic Science degree, or the University of Strathclyde’s collaboration with the Centre for Human Ecology. Even the Hippocratic Oath for scientists recently launched by the Council on Science and Technology was a small step in the right direction.
Some among a new generation of scientists give me hope about the future of our profession. They are modest about the certainty of their knowledge and open to including broader perspectives in their judgements than those that come out of the laboratory. But by living out the saying that “it is not new ideas that triumph, but old professors who pass away,” Britain’s celebrity spokespeople for science are holding us back. They are making the public think that nothing fundamental about the way we do science needs to change.
Tom Wakeford is Director of Co-Inquiry at the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre, University of Newcastle. His latest book Liaisons of Life (Wiley) explores alternatives to ultra-Darwinism.
Now, returning to our matters at hand, as Steve (Knot of this world) anticipated before, this is a metacognitive thread, a crucial practice that requires our multiple, critical thinkings in both Science and Religion, all at once, in an integrative unified way, before we each can really express our opinions sensibly and intelligently—while fully modern-minding or understanding the sensitivities of others, be they religious, scientific, or otherwise.
As such, in this Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion thread, we each shall overcome all those easily, dialectically-opposing, unilateral thinkings, such as, Scientism vs. Religionism in general, and Evolutionism vs. Creationism in particular, ever since the publication of Charles Darwin’s bestseller The Origin of Species (1859)!
In other words, as Howtothinklikegod has aspired, we need to train ourselves to think like God or Gods (as in metacognition)—but not just of or about God or Gods (as in Religionism)! Thank you all for keeping this thread alive and constructive worldwide!
Last but not least: Welcome again, SENT, I’ve had also a chance of reading your nice postings in these Creation/Evolution pages. Specifically, regarding the RV “remote viewing,” I would characterize it as a “speculative thinking” that is purely based on a speculative geography; whereupon the landmarks of RV are being speculated on; and which may or may not have had been experienced before—as in perception, imagination, conception, etc especially experienced in a prior GPS (global positioning satellite) viewing or spying. That’s why the RV psychophenomenon was an intensive CIA/KGB research during the cold war, but to no avail, scientifically, and even today!
In fact, the psychodynamics of RV is similar to that of a psychic, or a medium, who will speculate, pry, and prey on the believers’ gullible emotions, memories, and their relationships with their loved (or deceased) ones; especially, in their cultural and religious contexts—just as exercises in the interpretation of dreams! You might be interested in reviewing the Frontispiece of my book Gods, Genes, Conscience on how I try to speculate a modern Michelangelo at work—especially at a time when the old master attempted to contemplate on the Creation of Adam, as a G touch or RV (pick one) in his early 16th-century spherical mind!
By the way, beware of wild curiosity, one that may kill the cats! Whereas our human mind will learn, grow, and expand with our persistent disciplined curiosity and inquiry! Furthermore if you read Emoto’s “Frequently asked questions,” his answers are all metaphysics to me!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy thinking, posting, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/4/6usct11:39a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a freelance philosopher of mind, whose work is based on current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally.
While I see how you might think this, I don't entirely agree. The studies that have been done like the one spoken of here would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to the claims.
As for Emoto, I don't entirely agree with all his claims, and he could attribute the changes in the water to pink ducks sending him telepathic information, but it still wouldn't change the fact that harsh words/sounds/music caused disorder, but pleasant words caused order. Not the same order, but order none the less. I'm not implying that he's right, only that he's on to something (needs more impartial study).
Ok, so one could argue that the pink ducks might be changing the water, but until I see 'em I don't believe!
Hi Knot, and all,
Knot, you probably know my take on this as we have blabbed a lot, but for this thread I would like to offer that virtually all we see and think is a result of perception. How close these perceptions are to fact we do not know.
I agree with you that concepts such as 'seperation', 'boundaries', 'limitation', 'qualification', et al are merely logic/philosophic shortcomings as we try to apprehend more than we can see presently, and especially with 5 very corralled physical senses, when it is obvious that more than tactile sense is required for a more comprehensive universal view.
The Universe is already telling us this, e.g. by our discovery that most of it's physical construct and physical mass is nonexistant in the visible light spectrum. Quantum mechanics focuses so far into the small, and telescopy sees so far away - both from OUR point of view, yet we still can't see the elephant at all! The math is **arguably, and then some!*** indicating a theoretical unity, but can the math explain the What as well as the How?
At some point the pure concreteness of science has to rub up against the pure abstraction of philosophy; these two seemingly exclusive spheres are themselves an indicator of what appears to many now as an unlikely marriage that will provide tremendous insight. Our entire world is made up of what we call opposites - polarized to each other, yet when brought together create stability. Even antimatter - it's a rough go at first but once done we're stable.
We will eventually discover that science and philosophy are only mutually exclusive PERCEPTUALLY, not actually. Perception, for now, takes the place of Certainty (god I love that word) but carefully directed perception cannot but happily lead to it's own demise, as it itself becomes the harbinger of Reality.
Very nice postings above! For me, it’s been a very busy learning couple of weeks, even just trying to explore and follow the threads listed within this dynamic Physorg.com; which I first stumbled upon on April 18, 2006.
Since last week, I discovered there is another active General Science News forum in these pages; and I was totally absorbed by several ongoing threads therein, such as, Idetic Imagery (May 28 and 29), Where is the scientific proof that Evolution has taken place? (May 30 and 31), Cancer Cell (May 31 and June 1), and another fine thread Thoughts on CS/ID (May 25) within this Creation/Evolution forum.
Elsewhere, I discovered a new posting (May 18) that came after my (April 2) posting in the GuardianUK, in opposing to the idea of enlisting the British renowned atheist Richard Dawkins’ bestseller The Selfish Gene (1976) as a science canon!
For your convenience, let me present all these postings (including one that I responded on June 1) herein, with minor editings (as there are several US keystrokes are incompactable with the GuardianUK files); and I would like you all be the judge, in this matter of importance and consequences—as far as Science education and integrity in the UK is concerned; let alone the now worldwide phenomenon, whereupon we are increasingly facing the rise of religious fundamentalism (Religionism and ID neocreationism) as well as Scientism and Evolutionism, as exemplified by the work of Dawkins’ above, and the Daniel Dennett’s bestseller Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (February 2006), which I’ve had also characterized as an anti-Darwinism Scientism, as well as anti-Religionism—wherein Dennett has had implied Religion as a parasitism, blindly in attempt to resurrect the faulty theory of meme (or myth that I would prefer to call), in the metaphysical wordplay that was initially conceived by Dawkins in his first book The Selfish Gene, over 30 years ago!
QUOTE
To the Editor: [Comment is free GuardianUK; April 2]
I read Ian McEwan’s article A Parallel Tradition with great interest (Guardian Unlimited, April 1); and couldn’t resist to post my relevant responses in this Sue Blackmore's column The Selfish Gene's Birthday hereunder.
"Subject: Apologia for Scientism
“What an apologia for the Richard Dawkins’ scientism propagated in The Selfish Gene, by equating Dawkins’ metaphysical evolutionism to the tradition of good science literature! Didn’t McEwan realize that The Selfish Gene has had spawned a scientistic groupie of ibots—intellectual robots—who have had since lost their own critical and scientific thinkings? Obviously McEwan is one among them!
“What Dawkins has had created is a metaphysical evolutionism, or a genetic determinism to be exact, that if Charles Darwin could have had found out, he would have had turned over in his grave!
“Darwinian biology is based on the traditional science of taxonomy and material empiricism; whereas genetic determinism is merely based on Dawkins’ metaphysical thinking and definition and wordplay that he misconceived over 30 years ago as a result of his initial training in ethology—the study of animal behaviorism—but later he decided to venture out of his discipline, and went into molecular biology and genetics, instead.
“These academic misadventures have had created Dawkins a genetic determinist in his pure intellectual and literary pursuit, while without realizing that his blind (without any scientific basis or empiricism) pursuit of genetic determinism, has had been likened to his throwing out the baby (evolutionary biology) with the bathwater (the scientific spirits of Charles Darwin, intellectual and spiritual, or Darwinism)!
“Therefore, like the self-defeatist Intelligent Design neocreationism of today in the US, Genetic Determinism is anti-Darwinism! If McEwan could list The Selfish Gene as a traditional science canon, we might as well throw James Frey’s bestseller A Million Little Pieces into the mix of good English-language literature!”
Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, Mong 4/2/6usct3:55p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com (February 2006).
I read Ian McEwan’s article A Parallel Tradition with great interest (Guardian Unlimited, April 1); and couldn’t resist to post my relevant responses in this Sue Blackmore's column The Selfish Gene's Birthday hereunder.
"Subject: Apologia for Scientism
“What an apologia for the Richard Dawkins’ scientism propagated in The Selfish Gene, by equating Dawkins’ metaphysical evolutionism to the tradition of good science literature! Didn’t McEwan realize that The Selfish Gene has had spawned a scientistic groupie of ibots—intellectual robots—who have had since lost their own critical and scientific thinkings? Obviously McEwan is one among them!
“What Dawkins has had created is a metaphysical evolutionism, or a genetic determinism to be exact, that if Charles Darwin could have had found out, he would have had turned over in his grave!
“Darwinian biology is based on the traditional science of taxonomy and material empiricism; whereas genetic determinism is merely based on Dawkins’ metaphysical thinking and definition and wordplay that he misconceived over 30 years ago as a result of his initial training in ethology—the study of animal behaviorism—but later he decided to venture out of his discipline, and went into molecular biology and genetics, instead.
“These academic misadventures have had created Dawkins a genetic determinist in his pure intellectual and literary pursuit, while without realizing that his blind (without any scientific basis or empiricism) pursuit of genetic determinism, has had been likened to his throwing out the baby (evolutionary biology) with the bathwater (the scientific spirits of Charles Darwin, intellectual and spiritual, or Darwinism)!
“Therefore, like the self-defeatist Intelligent Design neocreationism of today in the US, Genetic Determinism is anti-Darwinism! If McEwan could list The Selfish Gene as a traditional science canon, we might as well throw James Frey’s bestseller A Million Little Pieces into the mix of good English-language literature!”
Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, Mong 4/2/6usct3:55p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com (February 2006).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To the Editor: [Comment is free GuardianUK; April 2] I read Ian McEwan’s article A Parallel Tradition with great interest (Guardian Unlimited, April 1); and couldn’t resist to post my relevant responses in this Sue Blackmore's column The Selfish Gene's Birthday hereunder. "Subject: Apologia for Scientism “What an apologia for the Richard Dawkins’ scientism propagated in The Selfish Gene, by equating Dawkins’ metaphysical evolutionism to the tradition of good science literature! Didn’t McEwan realize that The Selfish Gene has had spawned a scientistic groupie of ibots—intellectual robots—who have had since lost their own critical and scientific thinkings? Obviously McEwan is one among them! “What Dawkins has had created is a metaphysical evolutionism, or a genetic determinism to be exact, that if Charles Darwin could have had found out, he would have had turned over in his grave! “Darwinian biology is based on the traditional science of taxonomy and material empiricism; whereas genetic determinism is merely based on Dawkins’ metaphysical thinking and definition and wordplay that he misconceived over 30 years ago as a result of his initial training in ethology—the study of animal behaviorism—but later he decided to venture out of his discipline, and went into molecular biology and genetics, instead. “These academic misadventures have had created Dawkins a genetic determinist in his pure intellectual and literary pursuit, while without realizing that his blind (without any scientific basis or empiricism) pursuit of genetic determinism, has had been likened to his throwing out the baby (evolutionary biology) with the bathwater (the scientific spirits of Charles Darwin, intellectual and spiritual, or Darwinism)! “Therefore, like the self-defeatist Intelligent Design neocreationism of today in the US, Genetic Determinism is anti-Darwinism! If McEwan could list The Selfish Gene as a traditional science canon, we might as well throw James Frey’s bestseller A Million Little Pieces into the mix of good English-language literature!” Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Mong 4/2/6usct3:55p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com (February 2006). |
Selfish Genes are killing science… [Comment is free GuardianUK; May 18]
Fearing a US-style revival of religion as an alternative to science, the Royal Society recently decided to oppose the teaching of Creationism and intelligent design in UK schools. Some of the same celebrity scientists backing this position are also speaking out against the closure of university science departments, despite evidence that there is an ongoing decline in the number of school leavers wanting to study their courses. It is time they saw the connection.
A few years ago, a professor in a UK university contacted my research team to see whether we could help reform their increasingly unpopular physical science undergraduate degrees. We suggested what we felt were some common sense reforms making the relevance of the science to social and environmental problems explicit from the first lecture, and sacrificing some of the rote-learning of “basic” facts for a more problem-based synthetic approach.
Our proposals were never acted on. We heard reports that les eminences grises had dismissed them as a step backwards. They would rather stick to the traditional approach, and hope the students eventually saw the light. This year their Vice-chancellor announced that recruitment had nose-dived further, and that their whole department was to be closed.
Though the lack of attractive and well-paying careers may be one cause, the fall in demand for science courses is also linked to a sense among young people of a moral emptiness in traditional science.
For much of the twentieth century new generations struggled, often against the odds, to have a career in science because they believed that more science would mean greater social progress. Today’s youth see a political system that seems unable to address rising poverty or runaway climate change. They rightly conclude that solving scientific puzzles or inventing new gadgets alone is unlikely to save the world. This is where religions such as Christianity and Islam, with their strong emphasis on social justice, are coming back to haunt the rationalists.
The teaching of Biblical accounts of humanity’s origins as having an equal factual basis to biological evolution is, as Britain’s teachers voted this spring, nonsensical. Yet few of the sofa scientists acknowledge the need to understand the causes of the revival of Creationism, not merely condemn its consequences.
The quasi-religious belief in the selfish gene by the political class in the UK also helped lay the ground for a return to Creationism. Richard Dawkins justifies unfettered free-market capitalism as if it naturally follows from the laws of nature; and despite New Labour’s tinkering, these ultra-Darwinists have helped create a culture that values the pursuit of individual gain above all else.
So should young people believe that selfishness or solidarity is at the heart of humanity? In contrast to their prominence elsewhere, I didn’t see many selfish gene advocates taking a leading role in Make Poverty History last year. Like the then-editor of Science, Daniel Koshland, maybe they think poverty is “in the genes.” Economics used to be called the “dismal science,” but now it seems biology is in danger of joining it.
Too many academic scientists who make a virtue of the amoral nature of scientific inquiry when appearing in the mass media. Yet most young people realise that science conducted without a valuing of the very un-selfish concept of universal human rights ultimately leads to programmes such as eugenics and the cold logic of Nazi gas chambers. All sciences will have to become less dismal, and more moral, if they are to inspire young people again.
There are some exciting new initiatives that seem to be moving in this direction, such as the University of Plymouth’s Holistic Science degree, or the University of Strathclyde’s collaboration with the Centre for Human Ecology. Even the Hippocratic Oath for scientists recently launched by the Council on Science and Technology was a small step in the right direction.
Some among a new generation of scientists give me hope about the future of our profession. They are modest about the certainty of their knowledge and open to including broader perspectives in their judgements than those that come out of the laboratory. But by living out the saying that “it is not new ideas that triumph, but old professors who pass away,” Britain’s celebrity spokespeople for science are holding us back. They are making the public think that nothing fundamental about the way we do science needs to change.
Tom Wakeford is Director of Co-Inquiry at the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre, University of Newcastle. His latest book Liaisons of Life (Wiley) explores alternatives to ultra-Darwinism.
QUOTE
Subject: Rescind Scientism and Evolutionism Now! [Comment is free GuardianUK; June 1]
Thanks to Tom Wakeford, now, I know that I was not the only proverbial little boy, who could see that our Emperor in Darwinism actually has no clothes! (see my post above)
Recently I tried to review the World of Richard Dawkins on his selfish robotic genetics and memetics, but to no avail. Apparently his web pages have had been delisted. Whereas in the Guardian archives, there are still 2 silly nilly statements, that may well become the proverbial nails to his mindless, emotionless, robo-genetic Determination or Evolutionism coffin, so to speak, and quoted as follows:
1) “We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes;” and
2) “Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.”
As I analyzed above, these lines of scientistic thinking ring hollow; and they certainly run counter to the scientific empiricism of Charles Darwin, or Darwinism, intellectually and spiritually. That is why the US Intelligent Design neocreationists love Dawkins’ Evolutionism turned anti-Darwinism and anti-Religionism!
As such, I hereby request that both Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett rescind immediately their armchair Scientism—their misusing Darwinism as anti-Religionism—as they have had been propagating in their respective bestsellers The Selfish Gene (1976) and Breaking the Spell (February 2006). In fact, as any hands-on hard-working scientists and philosophers can attest, that Science—as a transparent means of truth knowledge seeking method—will not and should not quarrel with any Faiths of the world; only Scientism and Evolutionism as relentlessly and myopically pursued by Dawkins and Dennett, will!
Furthermore, in order to move on and beyond these senseless Scientism vs. Religionism in general, and Evolutionism vs. Creationism in particular, I have just started a new forum/thread with the Physorg.com entitled Let’s begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (listed in my very simple blog www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com), so as to stimulate ourselves to see if we can all evolve to be a better and wiser humanity worldwide—especially in the post 9/11/2001 world today and beyond.
At your convenience, please feel free to comment on the above forum/thread. Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, and scrutinizing!
Sincerely, Mong 6/1/6usct1:49a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com (February 2006); a freelance philosopher of mind, whose work is based on current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally.
Thanks to Tom Wakeford, now, I know that I was not the only proverbial little boy, who could see that our Emperor in Darwinism actually has no clothes! (see my post above)
Recently I tried to review the World of Richard Dawkins on his selfish robotic genetics and memetics, but to no avail. Apparently his web pages have had been delisted. Whereas in the Guardian archives, there are still 2 silly nilly statements, that may well become the proverbial nails to his mindless, emotionless, robo-genetic Determination or Evolutionism coffin, so to speak, and quoted as follows:
1) “We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes;” and
2) “Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.”
As I analyzed above, these lines of scientistic thinking ring hollow; and they certainly run counter to the scientific empiricism of Charles Darwin, or Darwinism, intellectually and spiritually. That is why the US Intelligent Design neocreationists love Dawkins’ Evolutionism turned anti-Darwinism and anti-Religionism!
As such, I hereby request that both Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett rescind immediately their armchair Scientism—their misusing Darwinism as anti-Religionism—as they have had been propagating in their respective bestsellers The Selfish Gene (1976) and Breaking the Spell (February 2006). In fact, as any hands-on hard-working scientists and philosophers can attest, that Science—as a transparent means of truth knowledge seeking method—will not and should not quarrel with any Faiths of the world; only Scientism and Evolutionism as relentlessly and myopically pursued by Dawkins and Dennett, will!
Furthermore, in order to move on and beyond these senseless Scientism vs. Religionism in general, and Evolutionism vs. Creationism in particular, I have just started a new forum/thread with the Physorg.com entitled Let’s begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (listed in my very simple blog www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com), so as to stimulate ourselves to see if we can all evolve to be a better and wiser humanity worldwide—especially in the post 9/11/2001 world today and beyond.
At your convenience, please feel free to comment on the above forum/thread. Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, and scrutinizing!
Sincerely, Mong 6/1/6usct1:49a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com (February 2006); a freelance philosopher of mind, whose work is based on current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally.
Now, returning to our matters at hand, as Steve (Knot of this world) anticipated before, this is a metacognitive thread, a crucial practice that requires our multiple, critical thinkings in both Science and Religion, all at once, in an integrative unified way, before we each can really express our opinions sensibly and intelligently—while fully modern-minding or understanding the sensitivities of others, be they religious, scientific, or otherwise.
As such, in this Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion thread, we each shall overcome all those easily, dialectically-opposing, unilateral thinkings, such as, Scientism vs. Religionism in general, and Evolutionism vs. Creationism in particular, ever since the publication of Charles Darwin’s bestseller The Origin of Species (1859)!
In other words, as Howtothinklikegod has aspired, we need to train ourselves to think like God or Gods (as in metacognition)—but not just of or about God or Gods (as in Religionism)! Thank you all for keeping this thread alive and constructive worldwide!
Last but not least: Welcome again, SENT, I’ve had also a chance of reading your nice postings in these Creation/Evolution pages. Specifically, regarding the RV “remote viewing,” I would characterize it as a “speculative thinking” that is purely based on a speculative geography; whereupon the landmarks of RV are being speculated on; and which may or may not have had been experienced before—as in perception, imagination, conception, etc especially experienced in a prior GPS (global positioning satellite) viewing or spying. That’s why the RV psychophenomenon was an intensive CIA/KGB research during the cold war, but to no avail, scientifically, and even today!
In fact, the psychodynamics of RV is similar to that of a psychic, or a medium, who will speculate, pry, and prey on the believers’ gullible emotions, memories, and their relationships with their loved (or deceased) ones; especially, in their cultural and religious contexts—just as exercises in the interpretation of dreams! You might be interested in reviewing the Frontispiece of my book Gods, Genes, Conscience on how I try to speculate a modern Michelangelo at work—especially at a time when the old master attempted to contemplate on the Creation of Adam, as a G touch or RV (pick one) in his early 16th-century spherical mind!
By the way, beware of wild curiosity, one that may kill the cats! Whereas our human mind will learn, grow, and expand with our persistent disciplined curiosity and inquiry! Furthermore if you read Emoto’s “Frequently asked questions,” his answers are all metaphysics to me!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy thinking, posting, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/4/6usct11:39a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a freelance philosopher of mind, whose work is based on current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally.
Hi Mong,
You know, I find it a really simple thing, to just see God and Nature as One and the same. I really cannot see how they can be separated. How much unnecessary violence could be avoided if people would only understand that they are arguing over a mere word!?
For most people 'reconciliation' means that they have to back down a rung, and admit to everyone, including themselves, that they may have been wrong about something.
Having put themselves on a pedestal, they are reluctant to take a fall...
When 'God' is understood as the true Nature in all things, we are able to recognise a little of it in ourselves, hence our intuition, but we need to know that our intuition is correct, hence the need for 'Science'.
We all have a physical side, and therefore a need to know, and we all have a spiritual side, and therefore intuition.
To 'pick a side' is to divide your own understanding, and only ever know one side of your own existence. A very two-dimensional outlook that only ever produces an 'us and them' situation.
So, maybe the question should be..
"Is there a good reason NOT to reconcile?"
k.
You know, I find it a really simple thing, to just see God and Nature as One and the same. I really cannot see how they can be separated. How much unnecessary violence could be avoided if people would only understand that they are arguing over a mere word!?
For most people 'reconciliation' means that they have to back down a rung, and admit to everyone, including themselves, that they may have been wrong about something.
Having put themselves on a pedestal, they are reluctant to take a fall...
When 'God' is understood as the true Nature in all things, we are able to recognise a little of it in ourselves, hence our intuition, but we need to know that our intuition is correct, hence the need for 'Science'.
We all have a physical side, and therefore a need to know, and we all have a spiritual side, and therefore intuition.
To 'pick a side' is to divide your own understanding, and only ever know one side of your own existence. A very two-dimensional outlook that only ever produces an 'us and them' situation.
So, maybe the question should be..
"Is there a good reason NOT to reconcile?"
k.
QUOTE
I would characterize it as a “speculative thinking” that is purely based on a speculative geography; whereupon the landmarks of RV are being speculated on; and which may or may not have had been experienced before—as in perception, imagination, conception, etc especially experienced in a prior GPS (global positioning satellite) viewing or spying.
While I see how you might think this, I don't entirely agree. The studies that have been done like the one spoken of here would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to the claims.
As for Emoto, I don't entirely agree with all his claims, and he could attribute the changes in the water to pink ducks sending him telepathic information, but it still wouldn't change the fact that harsh words/sounds/music caused disorder, but pleasant words caused order. Not the same order, but order none the less. I'm not implying that he's right, only that he's on to something (needs more impartial study).
Ok, so one could argue that the pink ducks might be changing the water, but until I see 'em I don't believe!
QUOTE
You know, I find it a really simple thing, to just see God and Nature as One and the same. I really cannot see how they can be separated. How much unnecessary violence could be avoided if people would only understand that they are arguing over a mere word!?
Hi Knot, and all,
Knot, you probably know my take on this as we have blabbed a lot, but for this thread I would like to offer that virtually all we see and think is a result of perception. How close these perceptions are to fact we do not know.
I agree with you that concepts such as 'seperation', 'boundaries', 'limitation', 'qualification', et al are merely logic/philosophic shortcomings as we try to apprehend more than we can see presently, and especially with 5 very corralled physical senses, when it is obvious that more than tactile sense is required for a more comprehensive universal view.
The Universe is already telling us this, e.g. by our discovery that most of it's physical construct and physical mass is nonexistant in the visible light spectrum. Quantum mechanics focuses so far into the small, and telescopy sees so far away - both from OUR point of view, yet we still can't see the elephant at all! The math is **arguably, and then some!*** indicating a theoretical unity, but can the math explain the What as well as the How?
At some point the pure concreteness of science has to rub up against the pure abstraction of philosophy; these two seemingly exclusive spheres are themselves an indicator of what appears to many now as an unlikely marriage that will provide tremendous insight. Our entire world is made up of what we call opposites - polarized to each other, yet when brought together create stability. Even antimatter - it's a rough go at first but once done we're stable.
We will eventually discover that science and philosophy are only mutually exclusive PERCEPTUALLY, not actually. Perception, for now, takes the place of Certainty (god I love that word) but carefully directed perception cannot but happily lead to it's own demise, as it itself becomes the harbinger of Reality.
Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Nice thinkings from Knot and Soundhertz! Maybe we could start expanding this Dialogue and Reconciliation thread into more thematic discussions, such as, elaborating more on Knot’s profound God=Nature thoughts; Soundhertz’s Perception; SENT's and StevenA's Phobias, etc. All these topics could spring up more discussions as those in vigorous Science, Religion, Philosophy, Reality, Intuition, Perception, Creationism, Scientism, Modernism, Medievalism, etc—or anything goes, as we discussed before!
As such, while talking about Religion, there is a very nice review of (or a counterpoint to) the US Tufts philosophy professor Daniel Dennett’s new book Breaking the Spell, by the US Princeton physics professor emeritus Freeman Dyson; who deftly debunks the Richard Dawkins’ faithful disciple ibot—intellectual robot; one who has had lost one’s own scientific and critical thinkings—as Dennett’s “looking from the outside” Scientism in his (book subtitle implies) “Religion as A Natural Phenomenon”—an innate spirituality that, in modern times, we must now define and understand by the ways of “looking from the inside,” as Dyson movingly tried to show in his essay, in The New York Review of Books (June 22).
Furthermore, in last 2 weeks, I was still fully engaged in learning the General Science News forum on topics like Diseases (June 6); Bacterial Immune System (June 8 and 12); and Time and Mind (June 12), in these Physorg.com pages.
Elsewhere, I’ve been closely following the developments of a sociological thinking of an aspiring multicultural philosopher-educator, Azly Rahman, who recently started a Trans-cultural Dialogue column in Malaysia Today (MT; June 6)—and as my simple blog Global Dialogues shows, it was from MT that I began to learn how to blog my writings in the cyberspace, starting with Let the Good Dialogues begin! (February 10).
With Rahman therein, I learned some more “cut & paste” and “truncate” kinds of blogging—as well as my trying to help him ward off some hackings (with vulgarities) to his multicultural sensitivity issues. For your convenience, I’ll just quote our correspondences therein as follows, for your references:
Mong H Tan, PhD said...[MalaysiaToday; June 14]
Hello, Dr. Rahman, everybody, mind, and spirit!
Very nice going; and postings of your Prologue and responses above! Regarding several irrelevant postings herein, may I present some cross-cultural observations thus far, for your consideration, as follows:
1) Religiously, and most importantly, Islam has had been thick in calling for “submissions;” could it because some readers had had not been before challenged or inspired to think in and for “themselves”—as in these Socratic examinations of life—but a mere “submission of self to the wills of Allah” or “self-repressions”—as in Freudian and Jungian psychoanalytical examinations of sexuality and spirituality, respectively?
2) Historically and culturally, unlike active Western intellectual and spiritual dialectics, Islam has had not been opened up for any “self” examinations, dialectic discussions, or scholarships; could it because of this fact—in lacking the mind-penetrating scholarships like those of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961)—that these acting-up readers are now having their self-contradictory, religious “inferiority-superiority complex” reactions to your nice intellectual-philosophic column in Malaysia Today?
3) At your convenience, perhaps you would consider a review of my new book Gods, Genes, Conscience; wherein I’ve had extensively and intensively examined the very meaning of our life, consciousness, humanity, civilization, mind and all on our unique Earth today and beyond, for your keen readership in Malaysia Today.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/14/6usct9:37a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006 (February); a philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
In about an hour later, I got an instant reply-posting as follows:
After this instant dialogue, more constructive responses came in from other readers—although at one point his column was “truncated” for a few hours (probably due to his request because of vulgarity-postings prior to my “observations” above).
Luckily, his column has had been restored—probably after canceling his initial request—otherwise, the last one-third (without vulgarities) of his over 90 responses in the last 10 days, could have had been lost!
Presently, Rahman has moved on to the next topic A Republic of Virtues? (MT; June 17). Please feel free to have a dialogue with him, if you all are interested in his subjects. Definitely, I would continue to observe his philosophic developments and growths.
Last, and of course not least, SENT, thanks for your nice Jessica Utts’ article on the RV research and claims, statistically. However, since after her 1995 report, all the RV projects in the US have had been terminated, as reported in the Wikipedia.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/18/6usct1:11p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
?? What exactly do you believe I have a fear of ??
Based on my statements to you.
?? What exactly do you believe I have a fear of ??
Based on my statements to you.
(SENT) While I see how you might think this, I don't entirely agree. The studies that have been done like the one spoken of here would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to the claims.
I am proposing that the aspects explored should be further explored. Nothing more, nothing less.
If it's possible to effect objects at a distance (prayer, faith healing, intention healing, etc) then why not get impressions of those same places? Or don't you believe in these things?
Here my statements are saying the same thing. Further exploration.
Unless I've missed something, I see no phobia. I have personal reason for having some belief in the remote viewing, but since it's personal experience it has no weight in this topic.
As for the reconciliation of these two fields, it will take the scientific discovery of the process of consciousness to prove experiences, because personal experience is the only type of "religious" experience.
This may seem harsh, but you seem to me to be very full of yourself. Maybe that comes from having all the answers already written down in your book, but if you are still learning, I doubt it. In my experience, the beliefs that are held to most rigidly are usually the ones furthest from the truth, so flexibility is a MUST.
Nice thinkings from Knot and Soundhertz! Maybe we could start expanding this Dialogue and Reconciliation thread into more thematic discussions, such as, elaborating more on Knot’s profound God=Nature thoughts; Soundhertz’s Perception; SENT's and StevenA's Phobias, etc. All these topics could spring up more discussions as those in vigorous Science, Religion, Philosophy, Reality, Intuition, Perception, Creationism, Scientism, Modernism, Medievalism, etc—or anything goes, as we discussed before!
As such, while talking about Religion, there is a very nice review of (or a counterpoint to) the US Tufts philosophy professor Daniel Dennett’s new book Breaking the Spell, by the US Princeton physics professor emeritus Freeman Dyson; who deftly debunks the Richard Dawkins’ faithful disciple ibot—intellectual robot; one who has had lost one’s own scientific and critical thinkings—as Dennett’s “looking from the outside” Scientism in his (book subtitle implies) “Religion as A Natural Phenomenon”—an innate spirituality that, in modern times, we must now define and understand by the ways of “looking from the inside,” as Dyson movingly tried to show in his essay, in The New York Review of Books (June 22).
Furthermore, in last 2 weeks, I was still fully engaged in learning the General Science News forum on topics like Diseases (June 6); Bacterial Immune System (June 8 and 12); and Time and Mind (June 12), in these Physorg.com pages.
Elsewhere, I’ve been closely following the developments of a sociological thinking of an aspiring multicultural philosopher-educator, Azly Rahman, who recently started a Trans-cultural Dialogue column in Malaysia Today (MT; June 6)—and as my simple blog Global Dialogues shows, it was from MT that I began to learn how to blog my writings in the cyberspace, starting with Let the Good Dialogues begin! (February 10).
With Rahman therein, I learned some more “cut & paste” and “truncate” kinds of blogging—as well as my trying to help him ward off some hackings (with vulgarities) to his multicultural sensitivity issues. For your convenience, I’ll just quote our correspondences therein as follows, for your references:
QUOTE
Mong H Tan, PhD said…[To the Editor, MalaysiaToday; June 7]
Dear Raja Petra,
What a great move by inviting Dr. Azly Rahman, to be an intellectual columnist in Malaysia Today!
I’ve been following the developments of his sociological thinking for sometimes now, and I eagerly look forward to reading more of his critical writings in MT soon!
Meanwhile, at your convenience, you all might want to frequent my simple blog on Global Dialogues as well; and further consider a review of my new book on relevant matters that Dr. Rahman is about to discuss herein, for your keen readership. Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Best wishes, Mong 6/6/6usct3:15p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006 (February 2006).
Dear Raja Petra,
What a great move by inviting Dr. Azly Rahman, to be an intellectual columnist in Malaysia Today!
I’ve been following the developments of his sociological thinking for sometimes now, and I eagerly look forward to reading more of his critical writings in MT soon!
Meanwhile, at your convenience, you all might want to frequent my simple blog on Global Dialogues as well; and further consider a review of my new book on relevant matters that Dr. Rahman is about to discuss herein, for your keen readership. Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Best wishes, Mong 6/6/6usct3:15p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006 (February 2006).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mong H Tan, PhD said…[To the Editor, MalaysiaToday; June 7] Dear Raja Petra, What a great move by inviting Dr. Azly Rahman, to be an intellectual columnist in Malaysia Today! I’ve been following the developments of his sociological thinking for sometimes now, and I eagerly look forward to reading more of his critical writings in MT soon! Meanwhile, at your convenience, you all might want to frequent my simple blog on Global Dialogues as well; and further consider a review of my new book on relevant matters that Dr. Rahman is about to discuss herein, for your keen readership. Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Best wishes, Mong 6/6/6usct3:15p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006 (February 2006). |
Mong H Tan, PhD said...[MalaysiaToday; June 14]
Hello, Dr. Rahman, everybody, mind, and spirit!
Very nice going; and postings of your Prologue and responses above! Regarding several irrelevant postings herein, may I present some cross-cultural observations thus far, for your consideration, as follows:
1) Religiously, and most importantly, Islam has had been thick in calling for “submissions;” could it because some readers had had not been before challenged or inspired to think in and for “themselves”—as in these Socratic examinations of life—but a mere “submission of self to the wills of Allah” or “self-repressions”—as in Freudian and Jungian psychoanalytical examinations of sexuality and spirituality, respectively?
2) Historically and culturally, unlike active Western intellectual and spiritual dialectics, Islam has had not been opened up for any “self” examinations, dialectic discussions, or scholarships; could it because of this fact—in lacking the mind-penetrating scholarships like those of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961)—that these acting-up readers are now having their self-contradictory, religious “inferiority-superiority complex” reactions to your nice intellectual-philosophic column in Malaysia Today?
3) At your convenience, perhaps you would consider a review of my new book Gods, Genes, Conscience; wherein I’ve had extensively and intensively examined the very meaning of our life, consciousness, humanity, civilization, mind and all on our unique Earth today and beyond, for your keen readership in Malaysia Today.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/14/6usct9:37a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006 (February); a philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
In about an hour later, I got an instant reply-posting as follows:
QUOTE
DR. AZLY RAHMAN said…[MalaysiaToday; June 14]
Dear Dr. Tan (Mong H, Tan),
I enjoyed your comment on the relationship between the notion of "submission", culture, and Islam. You have enriched us with your references to the need for this religion of peace to explore Freudian and postmodern perspectives of the self.
If Islam is looked at from the point of view of a cultural-specific religious doctrine, we will discover that will have all the characteristics of a "cultural-specific" way of living.
Think of Buddhism in all its variations and trans-cultural dimensions -- from its "breakaway" from the Vedas and the Sutras and in Siddharta's insistence on the "Middle Path" after his dissatisfaction with the way of the Sadhus to the Buddha's teaching as it flows worldwide in the form of the Mahayana, Hinayana, and Theravada and even to the idea of Zen Buddhism or those practiced by German transcendentalists. In all these geography and the "locations of culture" institutionalize the philosophical doctrine.
I have a sense that what we know now as "brain science", "mind and consciousness", "cybernetics", "neuro-linguistic programming" are a consequence of the development of this new science borrowed from eastern philosophies such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism.
The work of Nobel Prize winners Roger Sperry and Robert Ornstein (in The Psychology of Consciousness, for example) is foundational in understanding the new vision of understanding mind and consciousness. I am sure you are very familiar with this body of literature, Dr. Tan.
Back to Islam.
In every religion there is a metaphysical and mystical dimension that attempts to provide creative explanation of the inner workings of mind, body, consciousness, spirituality, life and the end of living.
Perhaps Islam during the period of "Andalusian philosophical renaissance" is one for you to look at to understand the centrality of the "lost" philosophical dimension of Islam as it is shrouded by the hegemony of cultures.
Like other religions, Islam is beautiful and profoundly intense in its explanation of mind and consciousness. But culture (that notion of "houses we inhabit and the tools we use and the hegemony we create) remains the dominant force of reducing things to their "reductionist" nature. For that matter, science is a religion and a dogma itself and is a culture.
The title of your book sounds very interesting and will perhaps be on the top list of my summer reading :-). What we need is to encourage others to look at disciplines, bodies of knowledge, religious ideas, political ideologies, economic theories, patterns in history, and the symbolisms of the self, in an integrative way.
There is so much beauty in the pattern of Chaos and in the structure produced by the Mandelbrott set. I think in our forum is about exploring this idea of "making sense" of the strangely and oftentimes violently" unfamiliar.
If we can help the poor, the marginalized, the powerless, and the dehumanized amongst us understand how their lives are a construction and a consequence of the degeneration and misinterpretation of power and ideology, we will be better students of life.
Peace to you, Dr. Tan. Look forward to your contributions in our next proposition on "virtue".
Dear Dr. Tan (Mong H, Tan),
I enjoyed your comment on the relationship between the notion of "submission", culture, and Islam. You have enriched us with your references to the need for this religion of peace to explore Freudian and postmodern perspectives of the self.
If Islam is looked at from the point of view of a cultural-specific religious doctrine, we will discover that will have all the characteristics of a "cultural-specific" way of living.
Think of Buddhism in all its variations and trans-cultural dimensions -- from its "breakaway" from the Vedas and the Sutras and in Siddharta's insistence on the "Middle Path" after his dissatisfaction with the way of the Sadhus to the Buddha's teaching as it flows worldwide in the form of the Mahayana, Hinayana, and Theravada and even to the idea of Zen Buddhism or those practiced by German transcendentalists. In all these geography and the "locations of culture" institutionalize the philosophical doctrine.
I have a sense that what we know now as "brain science", "mind and consciousness", "cybernetics", "neuro-linguistic programming" are a consequence of the development of this new science borrowed from eastern philosophies such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism.
The work of Nobel Prize winners Roger Sperry and Robert Ornstein (in The Psychology of Consciousness, for example) is foundational in understanding the new vision of understanding mind and consciousness. I am sure you are very familiar with this body of literature, Dr. Tan.
Back to Islam.
In every religion there is a metaphysical and mystical dimension that attempts to provide creative explanation of the inner workings of mind, body, consciousness, spirituality, life and the end of living.
Perhaps Islam during the period of "Andalusian philosophical renaissance" is one for you to look at to understand the centrality of the "lost" philosophical dimension of Islam as it is shrouded by the hegemony of cultures.
Like other religions, Islam is beautiful and profoundly intense in its explanation of mind and consciousness. But culture (that notion of "houses we inhabit and the tools we use and the hegemony we create) remains the dominant force of reducing things to their "reductionist" nature. For that matter, science is a religion and a dogma itself and is a culture.
The title of your book sounds very interesting and will perhaps be on the top list of my summer reading :-). What we need is to encourage others to look at disciplines, bodies of knowledge, religious ideas, political ideologies, economic theories, patterns in history, and the symbolisms of the self, in an integrative way.
There is so much beauty in the pattern of Chaos and in the structure produced by the Mandelbrott set. I think in our forum is about exploring this idea of "making sense" of the strangely and oftentimes violently" unfamiliar.
If we can help the poor, the marginalized, the powerless, and the dehumanized amongst us understand how their lives are a construction and a consequence of the degeneration and misinterpretation of power and ideology, we will be better students of life.
Peace to you, Dr. Tan. Look forward to your contributions in our next proposition on "virtue".
After this instant dialogue, more constructive responses came in from other readers—although at one point his column was “truncated” for a few hours (probably due to his request because of vulgarity-postings prior to my “observations” above).
Luckily, his column has had been restored—probably after canceling his initial request—otherwise, the last one-third (without vulgarities) of his over 90 responses in the last 10 days, could have had been lost!
Presently, Rahman has moved on to the next topic A Republic of Virtues? (MT; June 17). Please feel free to have a dialogue with him, if you all are interested in his subjects. Definitely, I would continue to observe his philosophic developments and growths.
Last, and of course not least, SENT, thanks for your nice Jessica Utts’ article on the RV research and claims, statistically. However, since after her 1995 report, all the RV projects in the US have had been terminated, as reported in the Wikipedia.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/18/6usct1:11p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
QUOTE
(Mong) SENT's and StevenA's Phobias
?? What exactly do you believe I have a fear of ??
Based on my statements to you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Mong) SENT's and StevenA's Phobias |
?? What exactly do you believe I have a fear of ??
Based on my statements to you.
(SENT) While I see how you might think this, I don't entirely agree. The studies that have been done like the one spoken of here would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to the claims.
I am proposing that the aspects explored should be further explored. Nothing more, nothing less.
If it's possible to effect objects at a distance (prayer, faith healing, intention healing, etc) then why not get impressions of those same places? Or don't you believe in these things?
QUOTE
(SENT)As for Emoto, I don't entirely agree with all his claims, and he could attribute the changes in the water to pink ducks sending him telepathic information, but it still wouldn't change the fact that harsh words/sounds/music caused disorder, but pleasant words caused order. Not the same order, but order none the less. I'm not implying that he's right, only that he's on to something (needs more impartial study).
Here my statements are saying the same thing. Further exploration.
Unless I've missed something, I see no phobia. I have personal reason for having some belief in the remote viewing, but since it's personal experience it has no weight in this topic.
As for the reconciliation of these two fields, it will take the scientific discovery of the process of consciousness to prove experiences, because personal experience is the only type of "religious" experience.
This may seem harsh, but you seem to me to be very full of yourself. Maybe that comes from having all the answers already written down in your book, but if you are still learning, I doubt it. In my experience, the beliefs that are held to most rigidly are usually the ones furthest from the truth, so flexibility is a MUST.
Greetings, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
1) Specifically, SENT, I think you had had misread my statement below:
Wherein “Phobias” were meant to be “topics of discussion,” as suggested in the sentence that followed; and not as any “personal psychoanalyses of fear” per se, as you had had interpreted above—However, my sincere apology, if that statement above had had indeed misled you to such a misreading and misinterpreting!
2) Personally, being an empiricist in all world matters, I believe in phenomena (material or immaterial) that can only be proved by evidence, with and after meta-analyses—or through and by our scientific and critical thinkings of metacognition, as we discussed in this thread before.
Whereas in the case of RV (“remote viewing”), the research and claims in the U California statistics professor Jessica Utts’ nice article (you cited) could not be substantiated by the psychological results (as reported in the Wikipedia article, I cited); and that’s why, following her 1995 report, all the RV projects had had been terminated by the US Defense Agencies. To wit: if RV was indeed true and effective, don’t you think the Pentagon could or would have had captured or killed Osama bin Laden by now?!
So, we must not let our curiosities reign too wild without any perceptivity of reality on Earth! As for other unproven psychophenomena that might be of your interest, I had had also briefly commented in the NatureUK before as listed and dated in parentheses for your references (Study challenges prayers for the sick, March 31; Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 11; and Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 13).
3) Now, since you have had accused me so “harshly,” my book in fact does have an “objective” analysis of “myself” as well as that of our humanity on Earth, to which we are all a part, in life and for life!
Furthermore, just to satisfy your curiosities (in case you have had not a chance of reading my book), it also defines what God and Gods are in our own spherical minds; a brave new concept—the Universal Theory of Mind (Chapter 15)—that once having been comprehended by the reader, it will provide (in the reader’s own mind and memory), all answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on our unique Earth, today and beyond. And, I’m totally in resonance with your profound thinking below:
Wherein “Phobias” were meant to be “topics of discussion,” as suggested in the sentence that followed; and not as any “personal psychoanalyses of fear” per se, as you had had interpreted above—However, my sincere apology, if that statement above had had indeed misled you to such a misreading and misinterpreting!
2) Personally, being an empiricist in all world matters, I believe in phenomena (material or immaterial) that can only be proved by evidence, with and after meta-analyses—or through and by our scientific and critical thinkings of metacognition, as we discussed in this thread before.
Whereas in the case of RV (“remote viewing”), the research and claims in the U California statistics professor Jessica Utts’ nice article (you cited) could not be substantiated by the psychological results (as reported in the Wikipedia article, I cited); and that’s why, following her 1995 report, all the RV projects had had been terminated by the US Defense Agencies. To wit: if RV was indeed true and effective, don’t you think the Pentagon could or would have had captured or killed Osama bin Laden by now?!
So, we must not let our curiosities reign too wild without any perceptivity of reality on Earth! As for other unproven psychophenomena that might be of your interest, I had had also briefly commented in the NatureUK before as listed and dated in parentheses for your references (Study challenges prayers for the sick, March 31; Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 11; and Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 13).
3) Now, since you have had accused me so “harshly,” my book in fact does have an “objective” analysis of “myself” as well as that of our humanity on Earth, to which we are all a part, in life and for life!
Furthermore, just to satisfy your curiosities (in case you have had not a chance of reading my book), it also defines what God and Gods are in our own spherical minds; a brave new concept—the Universal Theory of Mind (Chapter 15)—that once having been comprehended by the reader, it will provide (in the reader’s own mind and memory), all answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on our unique Earth, today and beyond. And, I’m totally in resonance with your profound thinking below:
In my experience, the beliefs that are held to most rigidly are usually the ones furthest from the truth, so flexibility is a MUST.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/20/6usct11:56a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
The suggestion in the sentence to follow did not lead me to the "topics of discussion" interpretation, but I too must confess that my reading of your post did occur during a tired period of my day so I'm sure that some of the fault was mine for the "misinterpretation".
The suggestion in the sentence to follow did not lead me to the "topics of discussion" interpretation, but I too must confess that my reading of your post did occur during a tired period of my day so I'm sure that some of the fault was mine for the "misinterpretation".
(Mong)
To wit: if RV was indeed true and effective, don’t you think the Pentagon could or would have had captured or killed Osama bin Laden by now?!
I do believe that there's something to RV because of my own experience, but again, personal experience is hardly proof, and to reproduce the results would require more than I have at my disposal. Not to say that my experience "proves" the nature of RV, but it was enough to cause me to doubt the locality of consciousness, and precise enough to make that doubt stick. Still, not proof.
Personally I am a practitioner of what you might call "unproven psycho-phenomena", and get results on a daily basis. These results are personal experience, and are very difficult to frame into a definitive scientific study, but I DO get results. Just in case you're wondering I'm a reiki healer, and in that realm of experience, I see things that science has no explanation for as of yet.
Lump this together and you get my unique viewpoint of non-local consciousness capable of healing through intention. Do you cover this topic in your book? (no disrespect intended, just curious)
Personally I am a practitioner of what you might call "unproven psycho-phenomena", and get results on a daily basis. These results are personal experience, and are very difficult to frame into a definitive scientific study, but I DO get results. Just in case you're wondering I'm a reiki healer, and in that realm of experience, I see things that science has no explanation for as of yet.
Lump this together and you get my unique viewpoint of non-local consciousness capable of healing through intention. Do you cover this topic in your book? (no disrespect intended, just curious)
(Mong)
Now, since you have had accused me so “harshly,” my book in fact does have an “objective” analysis of “myself” as well as that of our humanity on Earth, to which we are all a part, in life and for life!
I don't quite know if you were kidding or not.
This being my statement, you'll notice I used the word "seem" because I'm not sure if you are or not. The second part of the statement quoted above is due to the fact that you refer back to your book in almost every post you make (I say almost because I'm sure I've not read them all.). This leads me to believe that you have, to your own mind, reconciled MANY aspects of reality, but your previous statement that you had been learning from other threads leads me to believe that you still have more to learn, and as a result couldn't' have written down ALL the answers.
I do intend to read your book just out of curiosity, but until your "theories" have been tested/peer reviewed they aren't FACT, they are possibilities.
1) Specifically, SENT, I think you had had misread my statement below:
QUOTE
Maybe we could start expanding this Dialogue and Reconciliation thread into more thematic discussions, such as, elaborating more on Knot’s profound God=Nature thoughts; Soundhertz’s Perception; SENT's and StevenA's Phobias, etc. All these topics could spring up more discussions as those in vigorous Science, Religion, Philosophy, Reality, Intuition, Perception, Creationism, Scientism, Modernism, Medievalism, etc—or anything goes, as we discussed before!
Wherein “Phobias” were meant to be “topics of discussion,” as suggested in the sentence that followed; and not as any “personal psychoanalyses of fear” per se, as you had had interpreted above—However, my sincere apology, if that statement above had had indeed misled you to such a misreading and misinterpreting!
2) Personally, being an empiricist in all world matters, I believe in phenomena (material or immaterial) that can only be proved by evidence, with and after meta-analyses—or through and by our scientific and critical thinkings of metacognition, as we discussed in this thread before.
Whereas in the case of RV (“remote viewing”), the research and claims in the U California statistics professor Jessica Utts’ nice article (you cited) could not be substantiated by the psychological results (as reported in the Wikipedia article, I cited); and that’s why, following her 1995 report, all the RV projects had had been terminated by the US Defense Agencies. To wit: if RV was indeed true and effective, don’t you think the Pentagon could or would have had captured or killed Osama bin Laden by now?!
So, we must not let our curiosities reign too wild without any perceptivity of reality on Earth! As for other unproven psychophenomena that might be of your interest, I had had also briefly commented in the NatureUK before as listed and dated in parentheses for your references (Study challenges prayers for the sick, March 31; Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 11; and Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 13).
3) Now, since you have had accused me so “harshly,”
my book in fact does have an “objective” analysis of “myself” as well as that of our humanity on Earth, to which we are all a part, in life and for life! Furthermore, just to satisfy your curiosities (in case you have had not a chance of reading my book), it also defines what God and Gods are in our own spherical minds; a brave new concept—the Universal Theory of Mind (Chapter 15)—that once having been comprehended by the reader, it will provide (in the reader’s own mind and memory), all answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on our unique Earth, today and beyond. And, I’m totally in resonance with your profound thinking below:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe we could start expanding this Dialogue and Reconciliation thread into more thematic discussions, such as, elaborating more on Knot’s profound God=Nature thoughts; Soundhertz’s Perception; SENT's and StevenA's Phobias, etc. All these topics could spring up more discussions as those in vigorous Science, Religion, Philosophy, Reality, Intuition, Perception, Creationism, Scientism, Modernism, Medievalism, etc—or anything goes, as we discussed before! |
Wherein “Phobias” were meant to be “topics of discussion,” as suggested in the sentence that followed; and not as any “personal psychoanalyses of fear” per se, as you had had interpreted above—However, my sincere apology, if that statement above had had indeed misled you to such a misreading and misinterpreting!
2) Personally, being an empiricist in all world matters, I believe in phenomena (material or immaterial) that can only be proved by evidence, with and after meta-analyses—or through and by our scientific and critical thinkings of metacognition, as we discussed in this thread before.
Whereas in the case of RV (“remote viewing”), the research and claims in the U California statistics professor Jessica Utts’ nice article (you cited) could not be substantiated by the psychological results (as reported in the Wikipedia article, I cited); and that’s why, following her 1995 report, all the RV projects had had been terminated by the US Defense Agencies. To wit: if RV was indeed true and effective, don’t you think the Pentagon could or would have had captured or killed Osama bin Laden by now?!
So, we must not let our curiosities reign too wild without any perceptivity of reality on Earth! As for other unproven psychophenomena that might be of your interest, I had had also briefly commented in the NatureUK before as listed and dated in parentheses for your references (Study challenges prayers for the sick, March 31; Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 11; and Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 13).
3) Now, since you have had accused me so “harshly,”
my book in fact does have an “objective” analysis of “myself” as well as that of our humanity on Earth, to which we are all a part, in life and for life! Furthermore, just to satisfy your curiosities (in case you have had not a chance of reading my book), it also defines what God and Gods are in our own spherical minds; a brave new concept—the Universal Theory of Mind (Chapter 15)—that once having been comprehended by the reader, it will provide (in the reader’s own mind and memory), all answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on our unique Earth, today and beyond. And, I’m totally in resonance with your profound thinking below:
In my experience, the beliefs that are held to most rigidly are usually the ones furthest from the truth, so flexibility is a MUST.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/20/6usct11:56a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Oh, Dear Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
I just discovered that the URL links to the above NatureUK articles won’t work!
Here are their corresponding links with dates as listed below.
1) March 31, 2006
2) April 11, 2006
3) April 13, 2006
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/20/6usct12:45p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
I just discovered that the URL links to the above NatureUK articles won’t work!
Here are their corresponding links with dates as listed below.
1) March 31, 2006
2) April 11, 2006
3) April 13, 2006
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 6/20/6usct12:45p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
QUOTE
(Mong)
Wherein “Phobias” were meant to be “topics of discussion,” as suggested in the sentence that followed; and not as any “personal psychoanalysis of fear” per se, as you had had interpreted above—However, my sincere apology, if that statement above had had indeed misled you to such a misreading and misinterpreting!
Wherein “Phobias” were meant to be “topics of discussion,” as suggested in the sentence that followed; and not as any “personal psychoanalysis of fear” per se, as you had had interpreted above—However, my sincere apology, if that statement above had had indeed misled you to such a misreading and misinterpreting!
The suggestion in the sentence to follow did not lead me to the "topics of discussion" interpretation, but I too must confess that my reading of your post did occur during a tired period of my day so I'm sure that some of the fault was mine for the "misinterpretation".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Mong) Wherein “Phobias” were meant to be “topics of discussion,” as suggested in the sentence that followed; and not as any “personal psychoanalysis of fear” per se, as you had had interpreted above—However, my sincere apology, if that statement above had had indeed misled you to such a misreading and misinterpreting! |
The suggestion in the sentence to follow did not lead me to the "topics of discussion" interpretation, but I too must confess that my reading of your post did occur during a tired period of my day so I'm sure that some of the fault was mine for the "misinterpretation".
(Mong)
To wit: if RV was indeed true and effective, don’t you think the Pentagon could or would have had captured or killed Osama bin Laden by now?!
I do believe that there's something to RV because of my own experience, but again, personal experience is hardly proof, and to reproduce the results would require more than I have at my disposal. Not to say that my experience "proves" the nature of RV, but it was enough to cause me to doubt the locality of consciousness, and precise enough to make that doubt stick. Still, not proof.
QUOTE
(Mong)
As for other unproven psycho-phenomena that might be of your interest, I had had also briefly commented in the NatureUK before as listed and dated in parentheses for your references (Study challenges prayers for the sick, March 31; Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 11; and Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 13).
As for other unproven psycho-phenomena that might be of your interest, I had had also briefly commented in the NatureUK before as listed and dated in parentheses for your references (Study challenges prayers for the sick, March 31; Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 11; and Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 13).
Personally I am a practitioner of what you might call "unproven psycho-phenomena", and get results on a daily basis. These results are personal experience, and are very difficult to frame into a definitive scientific study, but I DO get results. Just in case you're wondering I'm a reiki healer, and in that realm of experience, I see things that science has no explanation for as of yet.
Lump this together and you get my unique viewpoint of non-local consciousness capable of healing through intention. Do you cover this topic in your book? (no disrespect intended, just curious)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Mong) As for other unproven psycho-phenomena that might be of your interest, I had had also briefly commented in the NatureUK before as listed and dated in parentheses for your references (Study challenges prayers for the sick, March 31; Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 11; and Are neardeath experiences a dream? April 13). |
Personally I am a practitioner of what you might call "unproven psycho-phenomena", and get results on a daily basis. These results are personal experience, and are very difficult to frame into a definitive scientific study, but I DO get results. Just in case you're wondering I'm a reiki healer, and in that realm of experience, I see things that science has no explanation for as of yet.
Lump this together and you get my unique viewpoint of non-local consciousness capable of healing through intention. Do you cover this topic in your book? (no disrespect intended, just curious)
(Mong)
Now, since you have had accused me so “harshly,” my book in fact does have an “objective” analysis of “myself” as well as that of our humanity on Earth, to which we are all a part, in life and for life!
I don't quite know if you were kidding or not.
QUOTE
(SENT)
This may seem harsh, but you seem to me to be very full of yourself. Maybe that comes from having all the answers already written down in your book, but if you are still learning, I doubt it.
This may seem harsh, but you seem to me to be very full of yourself. Maybe that comes from having all the answers already written down in your book, but if you are still learning, I doubt it.
This being my statement, you'll notice I used the word "seem" because I'm not sure if you are or not. The second part of the statement quoted above is due to the fact that you refer back to your book in almost every post you make (I say almost because I'm sure I've not read them all.). This leads me to believe that you have, to your own mind, reconciled MANY aspects of reality, but your previous statement that you had been learning from other threads leads me to believe that you still have more to learn, and as a result couldn't' have written down ALL the answers.
I do intend to read your book just out of curiosity, but until your "theories" have been tested/peer reviewed they aren't FACT, they are possibilities.
[QUOTE]I do believe that there's something to RV because of my own experience, but again, personal experience is hardly proof, and to reproduce the results would require more than I have at my disposal. Not to say that my experience "proves" the nature of RV, but it was enough to cause me to doubt the locality of consciousness, and precise enough to make that doubt stick. Still, not proof.
Hi Sent,
Firstly, your posts are enjoyable. It's amazing how many thoughtful minds converge on this forum. I would have thought something as accessible as this would have attracted those who would have tried (and succeeded) to obliterate the lofty thinking that happily dominates this forum.
On RV, it is my understanding that detailed observations were never an expectation, rather a fortunate plus if it occurred. In the interview with the Air Force officer who engaged heavily in RV when it was in practice, he said that the goal of RV was to establish the probability of events but not necessarily exact locations, just 'warm' or 'hot' areas of possibility as opposed to 'cold' areas. As an example he said that RV was able to determine a thermonuclear device would be detonated 'in the near future', but the exact locale could not be determined. The warm areas that gave impression were Israel, and oddly enough, at the time, North Korea (remember this took place years ago, when North Korea + nukes was not an issue of priority.) Of note, the U.S. was not a hot spot.
A similar methodology was Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy Box. Instructions to make one are still available. The 'Box' took the concept even further, maintaining that one could 'cause' events to occur at a remote location. I wouldn't have believed it were it not for a trusted aquaintance who built one and said he successfully used it, and this guy is anything but hyperbolic. So it really made me wonder, and I agree with your opinion on RV.
Is RV really much different than what Swami Rama was able to do at Stanford Research Institute? He officially was able to describe things remotely over and over again: all the experimental verification that the James Randi's could ever need. But even proof doesn't matter if one chooses not to believe. Rama and those similar are indications that the concepts indicated in "The Tao of Physics" may not be too far from scientific acceptance. Personal acceptance is another thing. But what is true will never be threatened by disbelief, it remains true.
peace,jb
Hi Sent,
Firstly, your posts are enjoyable. It's amazing how many thoughtful minds converge on this forum. I would have thought something as accessible as this would have attracted those who would have tried (and succeeded) to obliterate the lofty thinking that happily dominates this forum.
On RV, it is my understanding that detailed observations were never an expectation, rather a fortunate plus if it occurred. In the interview with the Air Force officer who engaged heavily in RV when it was in practice, he said that the goal of RV was to establish the probability of events but not necessarily exact locations, just 'warm' or 'hot' areas of possibility as opposed to 'cold' areas. As an example he said that RV was able to determine a thermonuclear device would be detonated 'in the near future', but the exact locale could not be determined. The warm areas that gave impression were Israel, and oddly enough, at the time, North Korea (remember this took place years ago, when North Korea + nukes was not an issue of priority.) Of note, the U.S. was not a hot spot.
A similar methodology was Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy Box. Instructions to make one are still available. The 'Box' took the concept even further, maintaining that one could 'cause' events to occur at a remote location. I wouldn't have believed it were it not for a trusted aquaintance who built one and said he successfully used it, and this guy is anything but hyperbolic. So it really made me wonder, and I agree with your opinion on RV.
Is RV really much different than what Swami Rama was able to do at Stanford Research Institute? He officially was able to describe things remotely over and over again: all the experimental verification that the James Randi's could ever need. But even proof doesn't matter if one chooses not to believe. Rama and those similar are indications that the concepts indicated in "The Tao of Physics" may not be too far from scientific acceptance. Personal acceptance is another thing. But what is true will never be threatened by disbelief, it remains true.
peace,jb
Hello all,
Thank you for your kind words soundhertz.
I enjoy learning from this crowd due to the diversity of opinion, and the concept of "fact" in their eyes. The debate is just an added bonus
I find it intensely interesting that so many "scientific" minded people get so caught up in being right that they fail to see their own contradictions, but I guess the same is thought about the religious group too. So it would seem that people in general fear being wrong.
I know I used to fear not being accepted when I was wrong, but then I realized that acceptance may be nice, but it makes you a slave of the one accepting you. I'd much rather present my perspective and observe other possible perspectives then think I'm right or wrong. That way I can adjust my perspective without feeling guilt, or anger, or anything that taints a learning experience.
I enjoy learning from this crowd due to the diversity of opinion, and the concept of "fact" in their eyes. The debate is just an added bonus
I find it intensely interesting that so many "scientific" minded people get so caught up in being right that they fail to see their own contradictions, but I guess the same is thought about the religious group too. So it would seem that people in general fear being wrong.
I know I used to fear not being accepted when I was wrong, but then I realized that acceptance may be nice, but it makes you a slave of the one accepting you. I'd much rather present my perspective and observe other possible perspectives then think I'm right or wrong. That way I can adjust my perspective without feeling guilt, or anger, or anything that taints a learning experience.
On RV, it is my understanding that detailed observations were never an expectation, rather a fortunate plus if it occurred.
This is true, which is why I didn't label my experience "Remote Viewing", and I didn't want to bring a topic like "Astral Projection" to the table with a skeptic holding the "Speaking-Rod". It's OK though, I have a happy reality with or without his approval.
Personally I don't require that anyone accept any of my beliefs, but there are some things in life that you can't see/accept/test without first believing they are possible.
How entertaining, this life thing
I know I used to fear not being accepted when I was wrong, but then I realized that acceptance may be nice, but it makes you a slave of the one accepting you. I'd much rather present my perspective and observe other possible perspectives then think I'm right or wrong. That way I can adjust my perspective without feeling guilt, or anger, or anything that taints a learning experience.
Nice one, Sent. Very Honest approach!
...and not easy, but well worth the effort..
k.
Hi Sent,
I'll say. Be a servant to your intelligence and you get self-righteous, use it purely and you gain wisdom, which is intelligence to the next dimension, as an analogy. It's the difference between listening to yourself all the time when you already know what you think, and listening to those you haven't heard yet, which makes life much more interesting!
jb
Thank you for your kind words soundhertz.
QUOTE
I would have thought something as accessible as this would have attracted those who would have tried (and succeeded) to obliterate the lofty thinking that happily dominates this forum.
I enjoy learning from this crowd due to the diversity of opinion, and the concept of "fact" in their eyes. The debate is just an added bonus
I find it intensely interesting that so many "scientific" minded people get so caught up in being right that they fail to see their own contradictions, but I guess the same is thought about the religious group too. So it would seem that people in general fear being wrong.
I know I used to fear not being accepted when I was wrong, but then I realized that acceptance may be nice, but it makes you a slave of the one accepting you. I'd much rather present my perspective and observe other possible perspectives then think I'm right or wrong. That way I can adjust my perspective without feeling guilt, or anger, or anything that taints a learning experience.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would have thought something as accessible as this would have attracted those who would have tried (and succeeded) to obliterate the lofty thinking that happily dominates this forum. |
I enjoy learning from this crowd due to the diversity of opinion, and the concept of "fact" in their eyes. The debate is just an added bonus
I find it intensely interesting that so many "scientific" minded people get so caught up in being right that they fail to see their own contradictions, but I guess the same is thought about the religious group too. So it would seem that people in general fear being wrong.
I know I used to fear not being accepted when I was wrong, but then I realized that acceptance may be nice, but it makes you a slave of the one accepting you. I'd much rather present my perspective and observe other possible perspectives then think I'm right or wrong. That way I can adjust my perspective without feeling guilt, or anger, or anything that taints a learning experience.
On RV, it is my understanding that detailed observations were never an expectation, rather a fortunate plus if it occurred.
This is true, which is why I didn't label my experience "Remote Viewing", and I didn't want to bring a topic like "Astral Projection" to the table with a skeptic holding the "Speaking-Rod". It's OK though, I have a happy reality with or without his approval.
QUOTE
Personal acceptance is another thing.
Personally I don't require that anyone accept any of my beliefs, but there are some things in life that you can't see/accept/test without first believing they are possible.
How entertaining, this life thing
QUOTE (SENT+Jun 23 2006, 05:05 PM)
I know I used to fear not being accepted when I was wrong, but then I realized that acceptance may be nice, but it makes you a slave of the one accepting you. I'd much rather present my perspective and observe other possible perspectives then think I'm right or wrong. That way I can adjust my perspective without feeling guilt, or anger, or anything that taints a learning experience.
Nice one, Sent. Very Honest approach!
...and not easy, but well worth the effort..
k.
QUOTE (SENT+Jun 23 2006, 05:05 PM)
QUOTE
I'd much rather present my perspective and observe other possible perspectives then think I'm right or wrong. That way I can adjust my perspective without feeling guilt, or anger, or anything that taints a learning experience
Hi Sent,
I'll say. Be a servant to your intelligence and you get self-righteous, use it purely and you gain wisdom, which is intelligence to the next dimension, as an analogy. It's the difference between listening to yourself all the time when you already know what you think, and listening to those you haven't heard yet, which makes life much more interesting!
jb
Knot, Soundhertz, all,
Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I'm glad they resonate with you.
I would like to ask for some opinions on a question that puzzles me. (Yes, it's on topic )
If religion produces personal experience, and personal experience is shaped by the perspective of the viewer (the brains tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables), and science is concerned with reproducible/verifiable results, how can these two be reconciled? I know that science will one day encounter what we currently group into religion, but it will probably be called something else. IMO the religious definition of god is so lacking that I doubt they would even be recognized as the same.
I think science is seeking answers that we can all experience, and religion is seeking answers that all see differently.
The reconciliation -
A. universal divine revelation
B. scientific definition of god
Which is more probable? (I think B.)
Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I'm glad they resonate with you.
I would like to ask for some opinions on a question that puzzles me. (Yes, it's on topic
)If religion produces personal experience, and personal experience is shaped by the perspective of the viewer (the brains tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables), and science is concerned with reproducible/verifiable results, how can these two be reconciled? I know that science will one day encounter what we currently group into religion, but it will probably be called something else. IMO the religious definition of god is so lacking that I doubt they would even be recognized as the same.
I think science is seeking answers that we can all experience, and religion is seeking answers that all see differently.
The reconciliation -
A. universal divine revelation
B. scientific definition of god
Which is more probable? (I think B.)
Greetings, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, I think you trio (SENT, Soundhertz, Knot) are having pretty good dialogues herein!
Regarding SENT’s profound “topics in topics” queries let me see if I can help sort them out and satisfy them point by point briefly, as follows:
1) In modern times, religions do not produce personal experiences (feelings, emotions); it is the personal feelings (spiritual needs) that give rise to a sense (and memory) of a need (and search) for a religion (or spirituality in general). Therefore, for survival reasons especially during hard times, in history and in spirituality, all cults or religions of all strides—from prehistoric shamanism to the 4th century-Catholicism, the 7th century-Islam, etc—had had been invented, ritualized, fashioned, organized, consecrated, so as to feed and control such needs—whereas a blind pursuit of such needs or faiths will often fall easy prey to the unscrupulous religionists worldwide (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience)!
2) The personal experiences will shape—but not be shaped (as you suggested) by—the perspectives of a viewer; and “memories” would be your definition of “the brain’s tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables.”
3) Science needs not to reconcile with Religion, as it is neutral on matters of religions; whereas Science—especially neuroscience—only seek to explain what religions are in our minds, and why we may fall for a religion, as I explained in 1) above. Nonetheless, it is up to the religious people who would need to reconcile with Science, so that they might be able to understand the working of their own minds and emotions better, especially in the post 9/11/2001, today and beyond.
4) The Science that you suggested, will encounter with Religion is Neuroscience; in fact it was in that aspiration (for about 15 years), that I wrote my book Gods, Genes, Conscience. The Universal Theory of Mind, Memories, Gods, Genes, Conscience, etc in my book are all neurologically and scientifically based, so I think it will have a better chance of having a long bookshelf-life, if not being recognized as a treatise in the Philosophy of Modern Mind, in years to come! You all are welcome to review it, at your convenience, of course!
5) I would paraphrase your profound statement like this: I think Science is seeking answers that we can all [see], and Religion is seeking answers that all [feel] differently. Furthermore, Science (seeing) and Religion (feeling) are the 2 faces (senses) of a same coin (our spherical mind); and our Spherical Mind of Consciousness is Infinity and in Unity, varying only in the degrees of how we each will cherish our minds (please see the Frontispiece and Chapter 15 of Gods, Genes, Conscience and my comments on Cultural Modularity of Mind?! elsewhere listed below)!
6) For the Reconciliation, please see point 3) above. Regarding A] universal divine revelation, I would define this as a subjective religious feeling; and B] scientific definition of god, this is also a subjective religious notion of A], so to speak, metaphorically, metaphysically, and scientifically; and both definitions have had been explored extensively and intensively, in The Universal Theory of Mind (please see Chapter 15, Gods, Genes, Conscience).
7) Your intuition is right! That’s why it needs a book like Gods, Genes, Conscience to explain all your inquiries, curiosities, and much more therein—including the whole history of the Universe above and beyond, ad infinitum! I hope all these points will help clear and enlighten your heart (feelings) and mind (thinking, reasoning, etc).
Last, but not least, for your information and my record, I’ve been in dialogues with the following threads (since my last posting herein above):
Cancer: A Disease of Civilization vs Evolution?! (PhysOrgEU; June 19; 21)
Azly Rahman: A Republic of Virtue? (MalaysiaToday; June 23; 28)
Richard Harries: Science does not challenge my faith--it strengthens it! (GuardianUK; June 25)
Stem Cell: A Retainer of Immortal DNA?! (PhysOrgEU; June 27; 28)
Cultural Modularity of Mind?! (PhysOrgEU; June 27; 29)
Azly Rahman: Are we merely creatures of signs and symbols manipulated by the State? (MalaysiaToday; June 29)
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 7/1/6usct12:10a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Specifically, I think you trio (SENT, Soundhertz, Knot) are having pretty good dialogues herein!
Regarding SENT’s profound “topics in topics” queries
let me see if I can help sort them out and satisfy them point by point briefly, as follows: QUOTE
If religion produces personal experience[1], and personal experience is shaped by the perspective of the viewer [2] (the brains tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables), and science is concerned with reproducible/verifiable results, how can these two be reconciled[3]? I know that science will one day encounter what we currently group into religion, but it will probably be called something else[4]. IMO the religious definition of god is so lacking that I doubt they would even be recognized as the same.
I think science is seeking answers that we can all experience, and religion is seeking answers that all see differently[5].
The reconciliation[6] -
A. universal divine revelation
B. scientific definition of god
Which is more probable? (I think B[7].)
I think science is seeking answers that we can all experience, and religion is seeking answers that all see differently[5].
The reconciliation[6] -
A. universal divine revelation
B. scientific definition of god
Which is more probable? (I think B[7].)
1) In modern times, religions do not produce personal experiences (feelings, emotions); it is the personal feelings (spiritual needs) that give rise to a sense (and memory) of a need (and search) for a religion (or spirituality in general). Therefore, for survival reasons especially during hard times, in history and in spirituality, all cults or religions of all strides—from prehistoric shamanism to the 4th century-Catholicism, the 7th century-Islam, etc—had had been invented, ritualized, fashioned, organized, consecrated, so as to feed and control such needs—whereas a blind pursuit of such needs or faiths will often fall easy prey to the unscrupulous religionists worldwide (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience)!
2) The personal experiences will shape—but not be shaped (as you suggested) by—the perspectives of a viewer; and “memories” would be your definition of “the brain’s tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables.”
3) Science needs not to reconcile with Religion, as it is neutral on matters of religions; whereas Science—especially neuroscience—only seek to explain what religions are in our minds, and why we may fall for a religion, as I explained in 1) above. Nonetheless, it is up to the religious people who would need to reconcile with Science, so that they might be able to understand the working of their own minds and emotions better, especially in the post 9/11/2001, today and beyond.
4) The Science that you suggested, will encounter with Religion is Neuroscience; in fact it was in that aspiration (for about 15 years), that I wrote my book Gods, Genes, Conscience. The Universal Theory of Mind, Memories, Gods, Genes, Conscience, etc in my book are all neurologically and scientifically based, so I think it will have a better chance of having a long bookshelf-life, if not being recognized as a treatise in the Philosophy of Modern Mind, in years to come! You all are welcome to review it, at your convenience, of course!
5) I would paraphrase your profound statement like this: I think Science is seeking answers that we can all [see], and Religion is seeking answers that all [feel] differently. Furthermore, Science (seeing) and Religion (feeling) are the 2 faces (senses) of a same coin (our spherical mind); and our Spherical Mind of Consciousness is Infinity and in Unity, varying only in the degrees of how we each will cherish our minds (please see the Frontispiece and Chapter 15 of Gods, Genes, Conscience and my comments on Cultural Modularity of Mind?! elsewhere listed below)!
6) For the Reconciliation, please see point 3) above. Regarding A] universal divine revelation, I would define this as a subjective religious feeling; and B] scientific definition of god, this is also a subjective religious notion of A], so to speak, metaphorically, metaphysically, and scientifically; and both definitions have had been explored extensively and intensively, in The Universal Theory of Mind (please see Chapter 15, Gods, Genes, Conscience).
7) Your intuition is right! That’s why it needs a book like Gods, Genes, Conscience to explain all your inquiries, curiosities, and much more therein—including the whole history of the Universe above and beyond, ad infinitum! I hope all these points will help clear and enlighten your heart (feelings) and mind (thinking, reasoning, etc).
Last, but not least, for your information and my record, I’ve been in dialogues with the following threads (since my last posting herein above):
Cancer: A Disease of Civilization vs Evolution?! (PhysOrgEU; June 19; 21)
Azly Rahman: A Republic of Virtue? (MalaysiaToday; June 23; 28)
Richard Harries: Science does not challenge my faith--it strengthens it! (GuardianUK; June 25)
Stem Cell: A Retainer of Immortal DNA?! (PhysOrgEU; June 27; 28)
Cultural Modularity of Mind?! (PhysOrgEU; June 27; 29)
Azly Rahman: Are we merely creatures of signs and symbols manipulated by the State? (MalaysiaToday; June 29)
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing!
Best wishes, Mong 7/1/6usct12:10a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hello Mong, all,
QUOTE (Mong+)
In modern times, religions do not produce personal experiences (feelings, emotions); it is the personal feelings (spiritual needs) that give rise to a sense (and memory) of a need (and search) for a religion (or spirituality in general).
Really? How could one experience ANYTHING other than personal experience? Doesn't every religion recommend methods for having a personal relationship with god?
In your view you're saying that it's personal feelings that give rise to a need for a spiritual quest, but what creates personal feelings if not experience? Most of our emotions are a result of misjudgment of past experience, so how can one feel emotion for an experience they've never had unless their mind places that experience in a previously experienced frame of reference?
Really? How could one experience ANYTHING other than personal experience? Doesn't every religion recommend methods for having a personal relationship with god?
In your view you're saying that it's personal feelings that give rise to a need for a spiritual quest, but what creates personal feelings if not experience? Most of our emotions are a result of misjudgment of past experience, so how can one feel emotion for an experience they've never had unless their mind places that experience in a previously experienced frame of reference?
QUOTE (Mong+)
The personal experiences will shape—but not be shaped (as you suggested) by—the perspectives of a viewer; and “memories” would be your definition of “the brain’s tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables.”
Personal experience is shaped by the perspective of the person, and as a result, the perspective is ultimately changed.
Examples
Two men drop their ice cream.
-one smiles and buys another - the man further realizes the futility of anger
-the other yells, and shouts about the problem. - the man thinks the world is out to get him.
Two children are scolded by their mother.
-one knows that mommy has had a long day, and forgives her. - the child realizes the need for compassion
-the other thinks "Mommy hates me." - the child feels like nothing they do is right.
What shaped the outcome? Who will take the more appropriate actions? Do you really think that personal experience isn't shaped by the perspective having that experience?
Personal experience is shaped by the perspective of the person, and as a result, the perspective is ultimately changed.
Examples
Two men drop their ice cream.
-one smiles and buys another - the man further realizes the futility of anger
-the other yells, and shouts about the problem. - the man thinks the world is out to get him.
Two children are scolded by their mother.
-one knows that mommy has had a long day, and forgives her. - the child realizes the need for compassion
-the other thinks "Mommy hates me." - the child feels like nothing they do is right.
What shaped the outcome? Who will take the more appropriate actions? Do you really think that personal experience isn't shaped by the perspective having that experience?
QUOTE (Mong+)
Science needs not to reconcile with Religion, as it is neutral on matters of religions; whereas Science—especially neuroscience—only seek to explain what religions are in our minds, and why we may fall for a religion, as I explained in 1) above.
Science needs not to reconcile with religion? You don't think it will take mutual effort to reconcile these two sides? Science seeks answers, religion seeks answers, but there will come a time when the questions being asked are the same. There's nothing that says our old definitions are perfect in outlining what "god" really is. For all we know, god is a reference to a specific electro-neuro-brainwave pattern that is the ultimate "high" experienced by kind loving ancestors. Sadly enough, we don't know, and until we do, I think it would be far wiser to compare notes than point fingers.
Science needs not to reconcile with religion? You don't think it will take mutual effort to reconcile these two sides? Science seeks answers, religion seeks answers, but there will come a time when the questions being asked are the same. There's nothing that says our old definitions are perfect in outlining what "god" really is. For all we know, god is a reference to a specific electro-neuro-brainwave pattern that is the ultimate "high" experienced by kind loving ancestors. Sadly enough, we don't know, and until we do, I think it would be far wiser to compare notes than point fingers.
QUOTE (Mong+)
For the Reconciliation, please see point 3) above. Regarding A] universal divine revelation, I would define this as a subjective religious feeling; and B] scientific definition of god, this is also a subjective religious notion of A], so to speak, metaphorically, metaphysically, and scientifically
I guess that's the point, you define for you, and I define for me.
If everyone experienced the same thing at the same time there'd still be different stories, but still talking about the same thing.
If religion produces personal experience, and personal experience is shaped by the perspective of the viewer (the brains tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables
Science can easily view personal experience as delusional; there is no other witness to testify. However, if the religiously inspired personal experience also resulted in events apart from the person, and others could testify to a shared experience of some kind, that takes it one step closer to validity.
Events like this that happened in the past (Lourdes, Fatima, et al) are far less compelling today, as we constantly requestion, reconsider, reevaluate. In science also. Look at the Einstein wars on this forum.
So a personal experience that emanates spiritually would have to be current, way observable, repeatable - it would indeed 'take a miracle'. Quite a few actually.
I think that if personal experience on a 'cosmic consciousness' order is possible, and mind can corral and wield great sums of energy which would be obvious to observers/recorders, especially today with around-the-world access live, we'd be getting closer to the science/spiritual melding that already makes so much sense to some. But what was done in the past won't do. Even the recent past. Swami Rama did some incredible things and it was observed/recorded/repeated by scientists, and most scientists today won't accept the data. It wasn't their personal experience, they weren't there. We all have to 'be there'.
I think it will take science a very very very long time to prove God mathematically. And if anyone is not content with waiting for science to prove God, they can dedicate themselves to finding the path to their own divine revelation. And I agree that current religious views of God hold an unfortunate grip on the definition of Perfect Mind, so who knows really what the revelation would even be, except beyond all imagination and understanding that we now possess. And it would have a signature of great power and great peace.
Yes science will probably define God before there is a universal divine revelation, but maybe not before a personal divine revelation. How much do you want one? Enough to stop hoping for the hereafter and learn about the here and now? I ask myself this question a lot. The future never arrives. It's only the present.
And so my question is, "What is it that we must learn, practice, and finally understand to bring our minds to this clarity?" No, not 'information' per se, but mental function/ability itself. This is where coberst is going in his carefully executed mapping of 'the pathways of good thinking', on his many threads in off-topic. It's not really what we learn but how well we learn to learn, and therefore how we mentally refine as a result. Eastern philosophy incorporates it's own method of critical thinking, and proponents describe great changes in clarity and depth of mental function, reaching seats of thought and awareness not anticipated or even previously knowable. We can talk about the 'enlightened', but we can also become enlightened ourselves. I believe it is a purely personal desire: the time allotted to the curriculum is directly proportional to the person's dedication to it.
I guess that's the point, you define for you, and I define for me.
If everyone experienced the same thing at the same time there'd still be different stories, but still talking about the same thing.
QUOTE (Mong+)
That’s why it needs a book like Gods, Genes, Conscience to explain all your inquiries, curiosities, and much more therein—including the whole history of the Universe above and beyond, ad infinitum!
How small is the print in this book of everything?
It's OK Mong, I'm sure your reality is a wonderful place for you, but without proof it's still only an opinion.
How small is the print in this book of everything?
It's OK Mong, I'm sure your reality is a wonderful place for you, but without proof it's still only an opinion.
There are higher beings that exist in the human frame. Jesus Christ was one.
Wanting to bring science and religion together there has been a book written: Finding God in Physics. The main point being that since God is Creator Science was created by Him. Sceince and Religion should be best friends.
I believe Einstein was a first of a kind. A kind of God scientist. He was no atheist and he said near the end of his life that the older he got the more he believed in the Creator. "I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are just details." -- Albert Einstein
Wanting to bring science and religion together there has been a book written: Finding God in Physics. The main point being that since God is Creator Science was created by Him. Sceince and Religion should be best friends.
I believe Einstein was a first of a kind. A kind of God scientist. He was no atheist and he said near the end of his life that the older he got the more he believed in the Creator. "I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are just details." -- Albert Einstein
QUOTE
If religion produces personal experience, and personal experience is shaped by the perspective of the viewer (the brains tendency to group experience in previously encountered life-variables
Science can easily view personal experience as delusional; there is no other witness to testify. However, if the religiously inspired personal experience also resulted in events apart from the person, and others could testify to a shared experience of some kind, that takes it one step closer to validity.
Events like this that happened in the past (Lourdes, Fatima, et al) are far less compelling today, as we constantly requestion, reconsider, reevaluate. In science also. Look at the Einstein wars on this forum.
So a personal experience that emanates spiritually would have to be current, way observable, repeatable - it would indeed 'take a miracle'. Quite a few actually.
I think that if personal experience on a 'cosmic consciousness' order is possible, and mind can corral and wield great sums of energy which would be obvious to observers/recorders, especially today with around-the-world access live, we'd be getting closer to the science/spiritual melding that already makes so much sense to some. But what was done in the past won't do. Even the recent past. Swami Rama did some incredible things and it was observed/recorded/repeated by scientists, and most scientists today won't accept the data. It wasn't their personal experience, they weren't there. We all have to 'be there'.
I think it will take science a very very very long time to prove God mathematically. And if anyone is not content with waiting for science to prove God, they can dedicate themselves to finding the path to their own divine revelation. And I agree that current religious views of God hold an unfortunate grip on the definition of Perfect Mind, so who knows really what the revelation would even be, except beyond all imagination and understanding that we now possess. And it would have a signature of great power and great peace.
Yes science will probably define God before there is a universal divine revelation, but maybe not before a personal divine revelation. How much do you want one? Enough to stop hoping for the hereafter and learn about the here and now? I ask myself this question a lot. The future never arrives. It's only the present.
Here and Now.
Yes.
This is reality.
Ride the wave that is now.
Yesterday created today, and today we all look pretty sad. But NOW is what will create tomorrow, so, be happy now, and create a happy tomorrow.
If God is not the thoughts of now, then Neitzsche is correct in saying that 'God is dead', as its thoughts are solidly trapped in the past, passed.
The creation continues. It is still evolving. Always has done, always will. This is eternity, as the instance of now.
Not all creators are wise. They have to become that way by evolving through trial and error. They have to learn to be wise. It is an ongoing process.
This is reality.
Yes.
Create happiness Here and Now. Be happy tomorrow.
k.
Yes.
This is reality.
Ride the wave that is now.
Yesterday created today, and today we all look pretty sad. But NOW is what will create tomorrow, so, be happy now, and create a happy tomorrow.
If God is not the thoughts of now, then Neitzsche is correct in saying that 'God is dead', as its thoughts are solidly trapped in the past, passed.
The creation continues. It is still evolving. Always has done, always will. This is eternity, as the instance of now.
Not all creators are wise. They have to become that way by evolving through trial and error. They have to learn to be wise. It is an ongoing process.
This is reality.
Yes.
Create happiness Here and Now. Be happy tomorrow.
k.
Here and Now.
Yes.
This is reality.
Ride the wave that is now.
Yesterday created today, and today we all look pretty sad. But NOW is what will create tomorrow, so, be happy now, and create a happy tomorrow.
If God is not the thoughts of now, then Neitzsche is correct in saying that 'God is dead', as its thoughts are solidly trapped in the past, passed.
The creation continues. It is still evolving. Always has done, always will. This is eternity, seen from the instance of now.
Not all creators are wise. They have to become that way by evolving through trial and error. They have to learn to be wise. It is an ongoing process.
This is reality.
Yes.
Create happiness Here and Now. Be happy tomorrow.
k.
Yes.
This is reality.
Ride the wave that is now.
Yesterday created today, and today we all look pretty sad. But NOW is what will create tomorrow, so, be happy now, and create a happy tomorrow.
If God is not the thoughts of now, then Neitzsche is correct in saying that 'God is dead', as its thoughts are solidly trapped in the past, passed.
The creation continues. It is still evolving. Always has done, always will. This is eternity, seen from the instance of now.
Not all creators are wise. They have to become that way by evolving through trial and error. They have to learn to be wise. It is an ongoing process.
This is reality.
Yes.
Create happiness Here and Now. Be happy tomorrow.
k.
Howdy folks.
Try this mental exercise: Bring twenty sober individuals together and ask them a generic question along the lines of, "What is after death of the body?" Suppose, then, garnering twenty different answers or, receiving hundreds of thousands, millions- no, hundreds of millions of personal views and answers to this question, and that any and all of these hundreds of millions of personal answers can in some way be now placed into a narrow twenty-odd different slots or categories.
Humanity has been polled and, so it goes, twenty basic views on life (or not) after death have been brought together. Discussion begins with the dichotomy of there is some kind of existence after death, or there is not, and the truth of the matter is discussion of course ends if there is no existence after death viz. life actually, in the end, has no meaning: "YOU ARE DEAD-GONE-GOOD-BYE!," so from the one supposition that there is existence, there has arisen nineteen vivid human expressions for an answer to the question; nineteen human views been conjured up and brought to the table for further consideration.
All nineteen disparate views can not be correct. And if all the views are incorrect than this train of thought I'm posting is an exercise in futility. But supposing one answer is correct. Suppose one person- rather, one category is correct, and all the others are "wrong." One as yet (or never to be) unverified category of human thought, in actuality, contains the truth as to the question of the reality of the situation: what is "after" when the moment comes when one's human bodily functions cease to function. Supposing within all of humanity today there are a group of people with the thoughts that contain the reality of the situation of what is after death. What rationally minded, politically-correct individual today would seriously consider the notion for one group right and all the others ...? not "wrong" per se but that is a good enough word for now.
Is there a method or process to sift and give credence to one or the other views? Would one have to be familiar with the philosophers of reformation times, eg., Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, and then to begin rehashing the questions and answers they brought up?
Not working the idea of life after death into the question of life's meaning, and purpose renders it shallow. Why would I or anyone care right at this moment if they were to build a statue of me a hundred years from now? Why would anyone care what is being said now or tomorrow in reference to anything if there is no relationship, relevance on and after death?
Sorry to say but it is a very shallow discussion for life's direction, purpose and meaning when no context of death is being worked into the discussion, into the equation. I mean, you are going to die, so who cares whether someone hundreds of years from now knows your name, speaks fondly or ill of you?
If there is a Creator, or not, ... is the question.
Think about the implications towards however the above question is answered. All truth follows from the answer to this type of question.
Try this mental exercise: Bring twenty sober individuals together and ask them a generic question along the lines of, "What is after death of the body?" Suppose, then, garnering twenty different answers or, receiving hundreds of thousands, millions- no, hundreds of millions of personal views and answers to this question, and that any and all of these hundreds of millions of personal answers can in some way be now placed into a narrow twenty-odd different slots or categories.
Humanity has been polled and, so it goes, twenty basic views on life (or not) after death have been brought together. Discussion begins with the dichotomy of there is some kind of existence after death, or there is not, and the truth of the matter is discussion of course ends if there is no existence after death viz. life actually, in the end, has no meaning: "YOU ARE DEAD-GONE-GOOD-BYE!," so from the one supposition that there is existence, there has arisen nineteen vivid human expressions for an answer to the question; nineteen human views been conjured up and brought to the table for further consideration.
All nineteen disparate views can not be correct. And if all the views are incorrect than this train of thought I'm posting is an exercise in futility. But supposing one answer is correct. Suppose one person- rather, one category is correct, and all the others are "wrong." One as yet (or never to be) unverified category of human thought, in actuality, contains the truth as to the question of the reality of the situation: what is "after" when the moment comes when one's human bodily functions cease to function. Supposing within all of humanity today there are a group of people with the thoughts that contain the reality of the situation of what is after death. What rationally minded, politically-correct individual today would seriously consider the notion for one group right and all the others ...? not "wrong" per se but that is a good enough word for now.
Is there a method or process to sift and give credence to one or the other views? Would one have to be familiar with the philosophers of reformation times, eg., Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, and then to begin rehashing the questions and answers they brought up?
Not working the idea of life after death into the question of life's meaning, and purpose renders it shallow. Why would I or anyone care right at this moment if they were to build a statue of me a hundred years from now? Why would anyone care what is being said now or tomorrow in reference to anything if there is no relationship, relevance on and after death?
Sorry to say but it is a very shallow discussion for life's direction, purpose and meaning when no context of death is being worked into the discussion, into the equation. I mean, you are going to die, so who cares whether someone hundreds of years from now knows your name, speaks fondly or ill of you?
If there is a Creator, or not, ... is the question.
Think about the implications towards however the above question is answered. All truth follows from the answer to this type of question.
Greetings, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Ashken: Well said in the above statements! At your convenience, would you take a look at another relevant thread in this very dynamic forum Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (PhysOrgEU; since May 5)? And please let us know how you would reconcile Science and Religion from your best perspective.
hi mong i wanted to take some time to give you my answer about this so let me give my point of view :
first of all let me tell you that my personal interest in another language ( english) has opened a wide perspective in regard of science matters ; the debate creation vrs evolution etc.but unfortunately there are not many people like me in this country and there are times like you feel against the current and i will give you an example :
i find an article in http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html and i was pointing this to another co-worker ( i had to translate the article for him) who happens to be christian so at first he was atonished that there were some scientist that believed in god and second he told me that internet is not a reliable source of information so i told him that in the page that i translated he could find the links to verify the information but the point is that this guy i could say that he is in some sort educated but there were in the table at lunch other mechanics ( we all are mechanics ) that laugh at the possibility of humans descending from apes they actually believe there was this god who created the universe and when i asked who created this creator they give me this answer " scientist can´t solve simple questions like who was first the egg or the chicken " and this other answer "i will not trade my religion for a monkey" and this other answer " god simple existed he wasn't created ". so whit this in mind i can assure you that in the basic line of thinking there will never be a reconciliation betweeen science and religion because like this discussion and everyone taking a stand defending his side or arguments this is the same replica in the real world.
Specifically, Ashken: Well said in the above statements! At your convenience, would you take a look at another relevant thread in this very dynamic forum Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (PhysOrgEU; since May 5)? And please let us know how you would reconcile Science and Religion from your best perspective.
hi mong i wanted to take some time to give you my answer about this so let me give my point of view :
first of all let me tell you that my personal interest in another language ( english) has opened a wide perspective in regard of science matters ; the debate creation vrs evolution etc.but unfortunately there are not many people like me in this country and there are times like you feel against the current and i will give you an example :
i find an article in http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html and i was pointing this to another co-worker ( i had to translate the article for him) who happens to be christian so at first he was atonished that there were some scientist that believed in god and second he told me that internet is not a reliable source of information so i told him that in the page that i translated he could find the links to verify the information but the point is that this guy i could say that he is in some sort educated but there were in the table at lunch other mechanics ( we all are mechanics ) that laugh at the possibility of humans descending from apes they actually believe there was this god who created the universe and when i asked who created this creator they give me this answer " scientist can´t solve simple questions like who was first the egg or the chicken " and this other answer "i will not trade my religion for a monkey" and this other answer " god simple existed he wasn't created ". so whit this in mind i can assure you that in the basic line of thinking there will never be a reconciliation betweeen science and religion because like this discussion and everyone taking a stand defending his side or arguments this is the same replica in the real world.
QUOTE (mergatroid+Sep 23 2006, 01:46 PM)
Howdy folks.
Try this mental exercise: Bring twenty sober individuals together and ask them a generic question along the lines of, "What is after death of the body?" Suppose, then, garnering twenty different answers or, receiving hundreds of thousands, millions- no, hundreds of millions of personal views and answers to this question, and that any and all of these hundreds of millions of personal answers can in some way be now placed into a narrow twenty-odd different slots or categories.
Humanity has been polled and, so it goes, twenty basic views on life (or not) after death have been brought together. Discussion begins with the dichotomy of there is some kind of existence after death, or there is not, and the truth of the matter is discussion of course ends if there is no existence after death viz. life actually, in the end, has no meaning: "YOU ARE DEAD-GONE-GOOD-BYE!," so from the one supposition that there is existence, there has arisen nineteen vivid human expressions for an answer to the question; nineteen human views been conjured up and brought to the table for further consideration.
All nineteen disparate views can not be correct. And if all the views are incorrect than this train of thought I'm posting is an exercise in futility. But supposing one answer is correct. Suppose one person- rather, one category is correct, and all the others are "wrong." One as yet (or never to be) unverified category of human thought, in actuality, contains the truth as to the question of the reality of the situation: what is "after" when the moment comes when one's human bodily functions cease to function. Supposing within all of humanity today there are a group of people with the thoughts that contain the reality of the situation of what is after death. What rationally minded, politically-correct individual today would seriously consider the notion for one group right and all the others ...? not "wrong" per se but that is a good enough word for now.
Is there a method or process to sift and give credence to one or the other views? Would one have to be familiar with the philosophers of reformation times, eg., Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, and then to begin rehashing the questions and answers they brought up?
Not working the idea of life after death into the question of life's meaning, and purpose renders it shallow. Why would I or anyone care right at this moment if they were to build a statue of me a hundred years from now? Why would anyone care what is being said now or tomorrow in reference to anything if there is no relationship, relevance on and after death?
Sorry to say but it is a very shallow discussion for life's direction, purpose and meaning when no context of death is being worked into the discussion, into the equation. I mean, you are going to die, so who cares whether someone hundreds of years from now knows your name, speaks fondly or ill of you?
If there is a Creator, or not, ... is the question.
Think about the implications towards however the above question is answered. All truth follows from the answer to this type of question.
There is no such thing as 'death'. There is only change.
There is no separation. Just movement.
Change through perpetual movement. Cause and effect.
Space is constantly re-creating itself. As tiny parts of it, so are we. This unconscious aspect of our being is what gives rise to the idea (as a vague intuition) of there being a 'creator'.
When we put the responsibility of wise (purposeful) creation somewhere outside of ourselves, it becomes subject to the most awful abuse, as others will gather this power and use it for their own (most often, selfish) purposes. Thus the life-purpose of the individual is lost in a crowd, which must then be able to agree on the mass-purpose of its collective state, or else have 'authority' forced upon them.
Agreement clearly does not happen, because the individual feels he has no purpose, and therefore starts to feel as though he should no longer care. The solution is for the individual to retain his own life-purpose by taking back his responsibility.
Understanding yourself as a necessary part of the 'greater spirit', and not separate from it, is essential to understanding your own life-purpose, and taking responsibility for it.
The question is not 'Is there a creator?' but rather, 'Can I find the creative side of myself, and hold responsibility for using it wisely?'
k.
Try this mental exercise: Bring twenty sober individuals together and ask them a generic question along the lines of, "What is after death of the body?" Suppose, then, garnering twenty different answers or, receiving hundreds of thousands, millions- no, hundreds of millions of personal views and answers to this question, and that any and all of these hundreds of millions of personal answers can in some way be now placed into a narrow twenty-odd different slots or categories.
Humanity has been polled and, so it goes, twenty basic views on life (or not) after death have been brought together. Discussion begins with the dichotomy of there is some kind of existence after death, or there is not, and the truth of the matter is discussion of course ends if there is no existence after death viz. life actually, in the end, has no meaning: "YOU ARE DEAD-GONE-GOOD-BYE!," so from the one supposition that there is existence, there has arisen nineteen vivid human expressions for an answer to the question; nineteen human views been conjured up and brought to the table for further consideration.
All nineteen disparate views can not be correct. And if all the views are incorrect than this train of thought I'm posting is an exercise in futility. But supposing one answer is correct. Suppose one person- rather, one category is correct, and all the others are "wrong." One as yet (or never to be) unverified category of human thought, in actuality, contains the truth as to the question of the reality of the situation: what is "after" when the moment comes when one's human bodily functions cease to function. Supposing within all of humanity today there are a group of people with the thoughts that contain the reality of the situation of what is after death. What rationally minded, politically-correct individual today would seriously consider the notion for one group right and all the others ...? not "wrong" per se but that is a good enough word for now.
Is there a method or process to sift and give credence to one or the other views? Would one have to be familiar with the philosophers of reformation times, eg., Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, and then to begin rehashing the questions and answers they brought up?
Not working the idea of life after death into the question of life's meaning, and purpose renders it shallow. Why would I or anyone care right at this moment if they were to build a statue of me a hundred years from now? Why would anyone care what is being said now or tomorrow in reference to anything if there is no relationship, relevance on and after death?
Sorry to say but it is a very shallow discussion for life's direction, purpose and meaning when no context of death is being worked into the discussion, into the equation. I mean, you are going to die, so who cares whether someone hundreds of years from now knows your name, speaks fondly or ill of you?
If there is a Creator, or not, ... is the question.
Think about the implications towards however the above question is answered. All truth follows from the answer to this type of question.
There is no such thing as 'death'. There is only change.
There is no separation. Just movement.
Change through perpetual movement. Cause and effect.
Space is constantly re-creating itself. As tiny parts of it, so are we. This unconscious aspect of our being is what gives rise to the idea (as a vague intuition) of there being a 'creator'.
When we put the responsibility of wise (purposeful) creation somewhere outside of ourselves, it becomes subject to the most awful abuse, as others will gather this power and use it for their own (most often, selfish) purposes. Thus the life-purpose of the individual is lost in a crowd, which must then be able to agree on the mass-purpose of its collective state, or else have 'authority' forced upon them.
Agreement clearly does not happen, because the individual feels he has no purpose, and therefore starts to feel as though he should no longer care. The solution is for the individual to retain his own life-purpose by taking back his responsibility.
Understanding yourself as a necessary part of the 'greater spirit', and not separate from it, is essential to understanding your own life-purpose, and taking responsibility for it.
The question is not 'Is there a creator?' but rather, 'Can I find the creative side of myself, and hold responsibility for using it wisely?'
k.
QUOTE
All nineteen disparate views can not be correct. And if all the views are incorrect than this train of thought I'm posting is an exercise in futility. But supposing one answer is correct. Suppose one person- rather, one category is correct, and all the others are "wrong." One as yet (or never to be) unverified category of human thought, in actuality, contains the truth as to the question of the reality of the situation: what is "after" when the moment comes when one's human bodily functions cease to function. Supposing within all of humanity today there are a group of people with the thoughts that contain the reality of the situation of what is after death.
And so my question is, "What is it that we must learn, practice, and finally understand to bring our minds to this clarity?" No, not 'information' per se, but mental function/ability itself. This is where coberst is going in his carefully executed mapping of 'the pathways of good thinking', on his many threads in off-topic. It's not really what we learn but how well we learn to learn, and therefore how we mentally refine as a result. Eastern philosophy incorporates it's own method of critical thinking, and proponents describe great changes in clarity and depth of mental function, reaching seats of thought and awareness not anticipated or even previously knowable. We can talk about the 'enlightened', but we can also become enlightened ourselves. I believe it is a purely personal desire: the time allotted to the curriculum is directly proportional to the person's dedication to it.
Agreed with soundhertz, because that eliminates the 'chosen few' scenario...
k.
k.
Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Knot of this world: Nice to see you as happy as a lark! And, Soundhertz: I fully concur with Knot of this world on what you said, as quoted with my point by point comments, as follows:
2] By modern definitions, I would attribute this to the interdisciplinary and metacognitive learning, especially including multicultural Religion and Science; more discussions below.
3] I believe this your definition of a self-disciplinary learning, thinking, and enlightening; more discussions below.
As for Ashken: Your observation was interesting and accurate within the context of your culture or any culture, as you said below:
In which case we need to discover Mentalmucil, the sooner the better
In which case we need to discover Mentalmucil, the sooner the better
Preparation 'H'appiness, no less! (I've tried 'spam', and it doesn't work! - Just makes you walk a bit strangely... )
And 'of course', "He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
Who said the quote - "The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we CAN imagine." ?
I believe in this quote. It is a statement that will always be applicable to our lives here. Our discussions and diatribes are all about things that are transient, things that change and evolve themselves as a barometer of our observation. How many different related directions are we going in this universe? But we can't even feel the speed of the Milky Way as it travels through space, let alone the expansion of the universe. We don't know what's going with this universe, only data based on our level of measuring, and translating what we measure, and what we measure has an effect on how we measure and the data it yields.
It's all a closed system to us tactilely, and that's currently all we have. And that is not enough for us to see or know what really is. What the real truth of existance is we do not know. But we can say that if there was a God as defined by current religious beliefs there should be a way to prove it publically, and that hasn't been done. In which case it would be constructive to search for another chronology that describes the Creator/Created scenario, one unrelated to religion. Religion is all emotion and no logic. This emotionally deduced god has never been found. The Universe is the epitomy of perfect adherence to premises. It is unwavering in it's scientific logic, googles of change every nanosecond, and it continues to unfold perfectly. Perhaps we should use this template in deducing a Creator/Created scenario and see where this kind of thinking leads to in terms of understanding the mind of a possible God and a more likely relationship to the created.
And 'of course', "He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
Quite right, Jethro!
Knot of this world: Nice to see you as happy as a lark! And, Soundhertz: I fully concur with Knot of this world on what you said, as quoted with my point by point comments, as follows:
QUOTE
"What is it that we must learn, practice, and finally understand to bring our minds to this clarity?"…It's not [only] what we learn but how well we learn to learn, and therefore how we mentally refine as a result[1]. Eastern philosophy incorporates it's own method of critical thinking, and proponents describe great changes in clarity and depth of mental function, reaching seats of thought and awareness not anticipated or even previously knowable[2]. We can talk about the 'enlightened', but we can also become enlightened ourselves. I believe it is a purely personal desire: the time allotted to the curriculum is directly proportional to the person's dedication to it[3].
1] I believe this is an answer to your own preamble question; please note that “what” we learn would define who we are, as in the case of religionists vs. scientists that we’ll discuss appropriately later.2] By modern definitions, I would attribute this to the interdisciplinary and metacognitive learning, especially including multicultural Religion and Science; more discussions below.
3] I believe this your definition of a self-disciplinary learning, thinking, and enlightening; more discussions below.
As for Ashken: Your observation was interesting and accurate within the context of your culture or any culture, as you said below:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "What is it that we must learn, practice, and finally understand to bring our minds to this clarity?"…It's not [only] what we learn but how well we learn to learn, and therefore how we mentally refine as a result[1]. Eastern philosophy incorporates it's own method of critical thinking, and proponents describe great changes in clarity and depth of mental function, reaching seats of thought and awareness not anticipated or even previously knowable[2]. We can talk about the 'enlightened', but we can also become enlightened ourselves. I believe it is a purely personal desire: the time allotted to the curriculum is directly proportional to the person's dedication to it[3]. |
1] I believe this is an answer to your own preamble question; please note that “what” we learn would define who we are, as in the case of religionists vs. scientists that we’ll discuss appropriately later.
2] By modern definitions, I would attribute this to the interdisciplinary and metacognitive learning, especially including multicultural Religion and Science; more discussions below.
3] I believe this your definition of a self-disciplinary learning, thinking, and enlightening; more discussions below.
As for Ashken: Your observation was interesting and accurate within the context of your culture or any culture, as you said below:
So with this in mind, I can assure you that in the basic line of thinking there will never be a reconciliation between science and religion because like this discussion and everyone taking a stand defending his side or arguments this is the same replica in the real world.
2] By modern definitions, I would attribute this to the interdisciplinary and metacognitive learning, especially including multicultural Religion and Science; more discussions below.
3] I believe this your definition of a self-disciplinary learning, thinking, and enlightening; more discussions below.
As for Ashken: Your observation was interesting and accurate within the context of your culture or any culture, as you said below:
So with this in mind, I can assure you that in the basic line of thinking there will never be a reconciliation between science and religion because like this discussion and everyone taking a stand defending his side or arguments this is the same replica in the real world.
Well, any reconciliation of Science and Religion must be done within oneself—as explained in 1] - 3] above—after one has had learned that Science and Religion are in fact the 2 sides of a same coin or one’s own Mind.
I believe I was posing that question to you as an individual, as you have had come to post your thread on “God in your brain.” From my observations, not many people would see it that way, as God in our brain; that’s why I was curious whether you have had reconciled Science and Religion, so as to arrive at that conclusion; also as explained in 1] - 3] above.
Nonetheless, please bear in mind that any reconciliation cannot be forced, it has to come from within one’s own metacognitive understanding of both Science and Religion—or of religions—in one’s own Mind, as a result of one’s own background education and livelihood, as explained in 1] - 3] above. More discussions below.
As for Mergatroid: You have posed 2 of the most aged questions since our humanity on Earth: "What is after death of the body?” "Is there a Creator?” Although Knot of this world has provided you some thought-provoking answers—as quoted below—I would like to elaborate them further, as relevant within the context of this thread, as follows:
Here the cold answers come: The body after death would be immediately consumed by micro organisms living within it; as our cells die and disintegrate, they thus become foods for bacteria or microbes. In the wilderness, as our ancestors died and without having been properly buried at their times, their bodies soon became foods for other animals as well. As such, there is, and had had been, none a Creator or the Almighty or God: Otherwise the almighty Creator would have had been collecting and protecting our dead bodies all over the world—no such a Body Collector or Life Protector ever appears—and above all, in the first place: Why won’t God have had been prohibiting us, the humans and animals, from killing each other, as God’s beloved creatures? In fact, no such a Creator has had ever shown up so as to prevent our very human warfare, ancient and modern, even global terrorism today?!
In religions, the answers are more emotional and complicated; as all cultures had had created and conducted their each own religious rites and rituals differently, ever since our prehistory over 50 thousand years ago. That’s why the followers of deferent organized religions would not be able to conduct in dialogue, or reconcile among themselves; but would rather go to war with each other, whenever their religious and survival views are in conflict, or in their attempts to impose or dominate their religiosity and survivorship over each other, ever since our written history over 5 thousand years ago, in the name of their religions and beliefs!
In general, and historically, all religions have had inherited from shamanisms and/or paganisms over 50 thousand years ago, when our ancestors began to fashion their survival rites and rituals, so as to consolidate and conform their tribalism of kinship and survivorship all over the world. Intuitively, spiritually, and creatively, in order to consul our emotional grieves over death, the shamans (including later medicine men, priests, witches, etc) invented by imagining “life after death” and “creator” myths; and attaching them with the meanings and morals of life, spirits, souls, etc; whose imageries had had been usually enacted during their ritual dances and/or ceremonies—at which times the shaman-priests were usually intoxicated with hallucinogens whose powerful effects that they had had attributed to their imaginary spirits, gods; and in some cultures, ghosts, etc; as described in their spiritual worlds (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods).
In short, in fast forward, and in conclusion: with the advances in our scientific knowledge and understanding—and yes, including the works of “the philosophers of reformation times, eg., [Luther,] Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, [Darwin, Freud, Jung, Campbell, et al] and then to begin rehashing the questions and answers they brought up;” also as explained in 1] - 3] above—the spiritual worlds in Religion must now be understood, as the psychical worlds of our Modern Mind, in our brain. And, all the meanings of Life or purposes are in fact to be created by our own brain within; and therefore, as Knot of this world rightly observed above: We each are now our own Creator, and must be responsible for our own creations in our Life, purposes, spirits, etc; and use our intuitions, creativity, wisely—as indeed, it’s all metacognitively created in the wondrous working of our brain or Mind within; as explained in 1] - 3] above; and also please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 6 The Meaning of Life; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/25/6usct2:59p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
I believe I was posing that question to you as an individual, as you have had come to post your thread on “God in your brain.” From my observations, not many people would see it that way, as God in our brain; that’s why I was curious whether you have had reconciled Science and Religion, so as to arrive at that conclusion; also as explained in 1] - 3] above.
Nonetheless, please bear in mind that any reconciliation cannot be forced, it has to come from within one’s own metacognitive understanding of both Science and Religion—or of religions—in one’s own Mind, as a result of one’s own background education and livelihood, as explained in 1] - 3] above. More discussions below.
As for Mergatroid: You have posed 2 of the most aged questions since our humanity on Earth: "What is after death of the body?” "Is there a Creator?” Although Knot of this world has provided you some thought-provoking answers—as quoted below—I would like to elaborate them further, as relevant within the context of this thread, as follows:
QUOTE
The solution is for the individual to retain his own life-purpose, is by taking back his responsibility.
Understanding yourself as a necessary part of the 'greater spirit', and not separate from it, is essential to understanding your own life-purpose, and taking responsibility for it.
The question is not 'Is there a creator?' but rather, 'Can I find the creative side of myself, and hold responsibility for using it wisely?'
By modern Science, the answers are very straight forward; but they would appear to be factually cold and meaningless, from our religiosity perspectives—our innate tendencies for mysteries, religious beliefs, etc. As such, the religious people would not be able to accept any scientific points of view readily or easily; and, in these people Science and Religion would always be in conflicts in their psyche, as Ashken has had also observed above.Understanding yourself as a necessary part of the 'greater spirit', and not separate from it, is essential to understanding your own life-purpose, and taking responsibility for it.
The question is not 'Is there a creator?' but rather, 'Can I find the creative side of myself, and hold responsibility for using it wisely?'
Here the cold answers come: The body after death would be immediately consumed by micro organisms living within it; as our cells die and disintegrate, they thus become foods for bacteria or microbes. In the wilderness, as our ancestors died and without having been properly buried at their times, their bodies soon became foods for other animals as well. As such, there is, and had had been, none a Creator or the Almighty or God: Otherwise the almighty Creator would have had been collecting and protecting our dead bodies all over the world—no such a Body Collector or Life Protector ever appears—and above all, in the first place: Why won’t God have had been prohibiting us, the humans and animals, from killing each other, as God’s beloved creatures? In fact, no such a Creator has had ever shown up so as to prevent our very human warfare, ancient and modern, even global terrorism today?!
In religions, the answers are more emotional and complicated; as all cultures had had created and conducted their each own religious rites and rituals differently, ever since our prehistory over 50 thousand years ago. That’s why the followers of deferent organized religions would not be able to conduct in dialogue, or reconcile among themselves; but would rather go to war with each other, whenever their religious and survival views are in conflict, or in their attempts to impose or dominate their religiosity and survivorship over each other, ever since our written history over 5 thousand years ago, in the name of their religions and beliefs!
In general, and historically, all religions have had inherited from shamanisms and/or paganisms over 50 thousand years ago, when our ancestors began to fashion their survival rites and rituals, so as to consolidate and conform their tribalism of kinship and survivorship all over the world. Intuitively, spiritually, and creatively, in order to consul our emotional grieves over death, the shamans (including later medicine men, priests, witches, etc) invented by imagining “life after death” and “creator” myths; and attaching them with the meanings and morals of life, spirits, souls, etc; whose imageries had had been usually enacted during their ritual dances and/or ceremonies—at which times the shaman-priests were usually intoxicated with hallucinogens whose powerful effects that they had had attributed to their imaginary spirits, gods; and in some cultures, ghosts, etc; as described in their spiritual worlds (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods).
In short, in fast forward, and in conclusion: with the advances in our scientific knowledge and understanding—and yes, including the works of “the philosophers of reformation times, eg., [Luther,] Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, [Darwin, Freud, Jung, Campbell, et al] and then to begin rehashing the questions and answers they brought up;” also as explained in 1] - 3] above—the spiritual worlds in Religion must now be understood, as the psychical worlds of our Modern Mind, in our brain. And, all the meanings of Life or purposes are in fact to be created by our own brain within; and therefore, as Knot of this world rightly observed above: We each are now our own Creator, and must be responsible for our own creations in our Life, purposes, spirits, etc; and use our intuitions, creativity, wisely—as indeed, it’s all metacognitively created in the wondrous working of our brain or Mind within; as explained in 1] - 3] above; and also please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 6 The Meaning of Life; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/25/6usct2:59p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
John Lennon wrote a song named, "Mind Games." Let's try playing one right now.
No one can prove or disprove through judicial or scientific methods the existence of "God." But one of these two statements is true; the other statement is, by consequence, false.
If there is a God ...? Then I, mergatroid, can not be the one to lead you to the next "stage." Your life, that "thing" in the back of your eyes you walk around with every waking moment of your life, exists for a reason. If you were in actuality created, then there is a reason for your existence. And how you go about finding what that reason is, that's your life.
That thing in the back of your eyes is fascinating, sometimes ..., but ultimately, literally everything hinges on your answer to the question of whether God exists or not.
All discussion contrary is in vain.
No one can prove or disprove through judicial or scientific methods the existence of "God." But one of these two statements is true; the other statement is, by consequence, false.
- There is a God.
- There is no such "thing" called God.
If there is a God ...? Then I, mergatroid, can not be the one to lead you to the next "stage." Your life, that "thing" in the back of your eyes you walk around with every waking moment of your life, exists for a reason. If you were in actuality created, then there is a reason for your existence. And how you go about finding what that reason is, that's your life.
That thing in the back of your eyes is fascinating, sometimes ..., but ultimately, literally everything hinges on your answer to the question of whether God exists or not.
All discussion contrary is in vain.
Hi all,
The physical body is almost a secondary 'vehicle' to the evolving consciousness. There is never any moment when anything at all 'stands still'. Even conception is an evolving process, and our births and subsequent lives are also processes of constant change
The only 'mysteries' are the things we do not yet know about ourselves, or things that we deny because we find them psychologically too 'difficult'.
WE are Space, evolving to become more aware of what we are.
WE have always known, through intuition, that we have an origin derived from the 'infinite', but only now do we have the necessary physical knowledge to understand what that 'infiniteness' is. WE can put a name to it, and it really is a question of semantics only, whether to call it 'God', or 'Tao', or 'Infinite Space'. The latter works for me, as it is now scientifically provable, a good place to start reconciliation within our own personal understanding, and an, as yet, unabused form of description.
'Metaphysics', although derided of modern times, is also an old 'pool' of collective thought, attempting to uncover, or decipher, our own metaphors for what is real. More like an old-time 'dream-therapy', that has also evolved (as all things must) into the modern ideas of the 'collective unconscious' (Jung).
No, the real question, mergatroid, is how we define 'God'. Do we stick to the old abusive ways, or surf with the reality that only truely exists now?
In my view, the old 'organised religions' were/are nothing more than political manipulations. A persons own spiritual link should never be given over to the 'protection' of any kind of 'heirarchy'.
But this 'spiritual link' is really our intuitive feelings, attempting to make some evolved sense out of our surroundings, and who/what we are, in relation to them. En masse, this produces among us a 'greater (collective) spirit', that we have described with many names, one of the main ones being 'God'.
It is time to understand in greater detail this 'God', this 'greater spirit', now. Now that we have uncovered enough knowledge to be able to do so accurately, and now that we are at a crucial point in our continuing existence. To stay in these 'dark ages' is to court more of the same violence and ingorance that we see all over our news everyday...
The 'reason' for our life is the same as the reason for any other form of 'life'. It exists to perpetuate itself, and continually experience its infinite possibilities.. There; 'mystery' preserved! (We can all breathe a sigh of relief and go back to smiling now! )
John Lennon wrote many great songs. We all know which one springs to mind most readily...WE can imagine, can't we?
Let's all play that one, right now...
Mong, I always try to be happy, my friend. Sometimes this even causes conflict between relevant ideas, but as long as we all evolve somehow, we are in accordance with the above 'greater spirit'; we add to the collective uncovering of Truth, and all is worth being happy about. Even if we stumble through many 'errors', we can still learn from what is 'not', as opposed to what 'is', so there is still cause for happiness, as long as we continue to learn!
Movement = Happiness, when it is accepted, and Sadness when it isn't!
k.
The physical body is almost a secondary 'vehicle' to the evolving consciousness. There is never any moment when anything at all 'stands still'. Even conception is an evolving process, and our births and subsequent lives are also processes of constant change
The only 'mysteries' are the things we do not yet know about ourselves, or things that we deny because we find them psychologically too 'difficult'.
WE are Space, evolving to become more aware of what we are.
WE have always known, through intuition, that we have an origin derived from the 'infinite', but only now do we have the necessary physical knowledge to understand what that 'infiniteness' is. WE can put a name to it, and it really is a question of semantics only, whether to call it 'God', or 'Tao', or 'Infinite Space'. The latter works for me, as it is now scientifically provable, a good place to start reconciliation within our own personal understanding, and an, as yet, unabused form of description.
'Metaphysics', although derided of modern times, is also an old 'pool' of collective thought, attempting to uncover, or decipher, our own metaphors for what is real. More like an old-time 'dream-therapy', that has also evolved (as all things must) into the modern ideas of the 'collective unconscious' (Jung).
No, the real question, mergatroid, is how we define 'God'. Do we stick to the old abusive ways, or surf with the reality that only truely exists now?
In my view, the old 'organised religions' were/are nothing more than political manipulations. A persons own spiritual link should never be given over to the 'protection' of any kind of 'heirarchy'.
But this 'spiritual link' is really our intuitive feelings, attempting to make some evolved sense out of our surroundings, and who/what we are, in relation to them. En masse, this produces among us a 'greater (collective) spirit', that we have described with many names, one of the main ones being 'God'.
It is time to understand in greater detail this 'God', this 'greater spirit', now. Now that we have uncovered enough knowledge to be able to do so accurately, and now that we are at a crucial point in our continuing existence. To stay in these 'dark ages' is to court more of the same violence and ingorance that we see all over our news everyday...
The 'reason' for our life is the same as the reason for any other form of 'life'. It exists to perpetuate itself, and continually experience its infinite possibilities.. There; 'mystery' preserved! (We can all breathe a sigh of relief and go back to smiling now!
)John Lennon wrote many great songs. We all know which one springs to mind most readily...WE can imagine, can't we?
Let's all play that one, right now...
Mong, I always try to be happy, my friend. Sometimes this even causes conflict between relevant ideas, but as long as we all evolve somehow, we are in accordance with the above 'greater spirit'; we add to the collective uncovering of Truth, and all is worth being happy about. Even if we stumble through many 'errors', we can still learn from what is 'not', as opposed to what 'is', so there is still cause for happiness, as long as we continue to learn!
Movement = Happiness, when it is accepted, and Sadness when it isn't!
k.
QUOTE
Movement = Happiness, when it is accepted, and Sadness when it isn't!
In which case we need to discover Mentalmucil, the sooner the better
QUOTE (soundhertz+Sep 26 2006, 10:31 PM)
In which case we need to discover Mentalmucil, the sooner the better
Preparation 'H'appiness, no less! (I've tried 'spam', and it doesn't work! - Just makes you walk a bit strangely...
)
QUOTE (Knot of this world+Sep 26 2006, 05:54 AM)
'Metaphysics', although derided of modern times, is also an old 'pool' of collective thought, attempting to uncover, or decipher, our own metaphors for what is real. More like an old-time 'dream-therapy', that has also evolved (as all things must) into the modern ideas of the 'collective unconscious' (Jung).
No, the real question, mergatroid, is how we define 'God'. Do we stick to the old abusive ways, or surf with the reality that only truly exists now?
In my view, the old 'organized religions' were/are nothing more than political manipulations. A persons own spiritual link should never be given over to the 'protection' of any kind of 'hierarchy'.
But this 'spiritual link' is really our intuitive feelings, attempting to make some evolved sense out of our surroundings, and who/what we are, in relation to them. En masse, this produces among us a 'greater (collective) spirit', that we have described with many names, one of the main ones being 'God'.
It is time to understand in greater detail this 'God', this 'greater spirit', now. Now that we have uncovered enough knowledge to be able to do so accurately, and now that we are at a crucial point in our continuing existence. To stay in these 'dark ages' is to court more of the same violence and ignorance that we see all over our news everyday...
The 'reason' for our life is the same as the reason for any other form of 'life'. It exists to perpetuate itself, and continually experience its infinite possibilities.. There; 'mystery' preserved! (We can all breathe a sigh of relief and go back to smiling now! )
Knot of this world,
just take care of yourself, first. Forget for the moment, maybe for a good long while, any thoughts pertaining to and in context with this "we" thing. If there is a God who, ...? oh, created the electron and makes the electron do what it does over and over again, then it knows (probably) what you just said, and what you and me and everyone else is and are doing at any given moment.
This is a pretty nice time to be living on this earth. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said he can see what great things are going to happen in the next hundred years, and that he regrets being born so early.
If anyone were to make a sincere effort today to look for and to maybe find sufficient evidence for the existence of a Creator, and doing so devising with your own shallow or deep terms of personal philosophies (sophistry,) don't think that this God, if It exists, don't think It is so nincompoopish that It hasn't set the world such that, [i]if It wants you personally to do so, you can not or will not find satisfactory evidence for It's existence. I mean, you've got the rest of your life to go out there and look around ..., but from my own observations, this "Thing," whatever It is (if It exists) does not want to present Itself to everyone; at least It does not want to do so in any blatant fashion.
All that matters is your relationship with this Creator. Take care of yourself and your own relationship with It (if a relationship ever does happen rather). Go look for It by yourself, with yourself. And forget about everyone else for awhile. I mean, you came into this world by yourself, and you're leaving by yourself too. Who cares about anyone else right about now? (I'm speaking for you now saying that.)
No, the real question, mergatroid, is how we define 'God'. Do we stick to the old abusive ways, or surf with the reality that only truly exists now?
In my view, the old 'organized religions' were/are nothing more than political manipulations. A persons own spiritual link should never be given over to the 'protection' of any kind of 'hierarchy'.
But this 'spiritual link' is really our intuitive feelings, attempting to make some evolved sense out of our surroundings, and who/what we are, in relation to them. En masse, this produces among us a 'greater (collective) spirit', that we have described with many names, one of the main ones being 'God'.
It is time to understand in greater detail this 'God', this 'greater spirit', now. Now that we have uncovered enough knowledge to be able to do so accurately, and now that we are at a crucial point in our continuing existence. To stay in these 'dark ages' is to court more of the same violence and ignorance that we see all over our news everyday...
The 'reason' for our life is the same as the reason for any other form of 'life'. It exists to perpetuate itself, and continually experience its infinite possibilities.. There; 'mystery' preserved! (We can all breathe a sigh of relief and go back to smiling now!
)Knot of this world,
just take care of yourself, first. Forget for the moment, maybe for a good long while, any thoughts pertaining to and in context with this "we" thing. If there is a God who, ...? oh, created the electron and makes the electron do what it does over and over again, then it knows (probably) what you just said, and what you and me and everyone else is and are doing at any given moment.
This is a pretty nice time to be living on this earth. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said he can see what great things are going to happen in the next hundred years, and that he regrets being born so early.
If anyone were to make a sincere effort today to look for and to maybe find sufficient evidence for the existence of a Creator, and doing so devising with your own shallow or deep terms of personal philosophies (sophistry,) don't think that this God, if It exists, don't think It is so nincompoopish that It hasn't set the world such that, [i]if It wants you personally to do so, you can not or will not find satisfactory evidence for It's existence. I mean, you've got the rest of your life to go out there and look around ..., but from my own observations, this "Thing," whatever It is (if It exists) does not want to present Itself to everyone; at least It does not want to do so in any blatant fashion.
All that matters is your relationship with this Creator. Take care of yourself and your own relationship with It (if a relationship ever does happen rather). Go look for It by yourself, with yourself. And forget about everyone else for awhile. I mean, you came into this world by yourself, and you're leaving by yourself too. Who cares about anyone else right about now? (I'm speaking for you now saying that.)
Wow. I see, and now have five blue squares, instead of two squares beside the stats of each of mergatroid's post.
Mergatroid will live ...!
Mergatroid will live ...!
Now you see, mr. mergatroid, that it is exactly the kind of mind-set that concentrates on itself first, which will perpetuate the violence that the good mr. franklin is thankfully not here to witness. There is a good chance he is turning in his grave right now!
You (intentionally?) misread my thoughts on 'God'.
I am very well taken care of, as I, quite luckily, was born into a comfortable home, in a 'western society', wanting for very little. However, this is not the case for many millions of ('God's'?) people, who continue to suffer because of the messy and extremely dubious politics ('religions') they are forcedly subjected to, by those who would 'take care of themselves first'. It wasn't until much later that I realised all this luxury is being paid for in 'foreign' blood. (But then, you don't, do you, when you are only thinking of yourself?)
So, I thank you for your oblivious concern, but I have already found my 'creator'. I had two parents for my physical creation, and have an ongoing, continually evolving, connection to the (collective) 'Greater Spirit' of Infinite Space from which everything is originated.
I am happy for you to call IT 'God', if it so pleases you (though, I have to say, my observations do not perceive a happy man! - Regardless of your thoughts that it is a 'nice time' to be living on this earth, it is also at the cost of some pretty dreadful times, for others, not so far from 'home'. Unconsciously, you know this, and it is not a cause for happiness, hence the continued desperate struggle of 'religions' worldwide, to stay in the minds of the 'masses', not to mention the 'perpetrators' themselves!).
Mergatroid, what can you possibly have against this '"we" thing'? Are only a 'chosen few' allowed to know their own 'God'? I really don't understand why you would object to anything that brings people closer together, unless you had some ulterior motive, or political (religious) advantage to be gained?
Also, please note, this thread is concerned with the RECONCILIATION, not division, which I'm sure you will find in abundance on many other threads.
My motivation is to see people happily communicating with Honesty and Trust. Making friends with each other instead of perpetual enemies, and leaving the beauty of this world to be savoured by our subsequent selves. I am still lucky. I still get to enjoy this beauty, and appreciate it, regularly. If your 'God' has a problem with that, you will have to ask it, one sunny sunday perhaps, why it even bothered?
For the record, I already have, and my conscience is clear, because this is what I found...
If our connection to any 'God' is anything at all, then it is Love, Compassion, Honesty and Trust. The very things that you would neglect with your 'every man for himself', elitist, 'chosen few' stance...
No. It is time for another approach. Faced with climatic catastrophy, and impending human insanity (under the guise of another 'war'), there is no choice but to change. No longer any 'new lands' to settle in (Read: 'steal').
'Society' will not break down, if it is prepared to negotiate with itself. To reconcile its differences, and forgive itself for its brutal past. It simply has to say 'Sorry, now let's try being friends for a change...' Reconciliation is the only option left, other than total destruction (of 'God's creation', of course. - Turn it into 'hell', maybe?)
So, what else are you gonna do, mergatroid, start nailing people to a crosses? (Been there, done that, remember? - But you know that you can't kill the eternal spirit, right? )
k.
You (intentionally?) misread my thoughts on 'God'.
I am very well taken care of, as I, quite luckily, was born into a comfortable home, in a 'western society', wanting for very little. However, this is not the case for many millions of ('God's'?) people, who continue to suffer because of the messy and extremely dubious politics ('religions') they are forcedly subjected to, by those who would 'take care of themselves first'. It wasn't until much later that I realised all this luxury is being paid for in 'foreign' blood. (But then, you don't, do you, when you are only thinking of yourself?)
So, I thank you for your oblivious concern, but I have already found my 'creator'. I had two parents for my physical creation, and have an ongoing, continually evolving, connection to the (collective) 'Greater Spirit' of Infinite Space from which everything is originated.
I am happy for you to call IT 'God', if it so pleases you (though, I have to say, my observations do not perceive a happy man! - Regardless of your thoughts that it is a 'nice time' to be living on this earth, it is also at the cost of some pretty dreadful times, for others, not so far from 'home'. Unconsciously, you know this, and it is not a cause for happiness, hence the continued desperate struggle of 'religions' worldwide, to stay in the minds of the 'masses', not to mention the 'perpetrators' themselves!).
Mergatroid, what can you possibly have against this '"we" thing'? Are only a 'chosen few' allowed to know their own 'God'? I really don't understand why you would object to anything that brings people closer together, unless you had some ulterior motive, or political (religious) advantage to be gained?
Also, please note, this thread is concerned with the RECONCILIATION, not division, which I'm sure you will find in abundance on many other threads.
My motivation is to see people happily communicating with Honesty and Trust. Making friends with each other instead of perpetual enemies, and leaving the beauty of this world to be savoured by our subsequent selves. I am still lucky. I still get to enjoy this beauty, and appreciate it, regularly. If your 'God' has a problem with that, you will have to ask it, one sunny sunday perhaps, why it even bothered?
For the record, I already have, and my conscience is clear, because this is what I found...
If our connection to any 'God' is anything at all, then it is Love, Compassion, Honesty and Trust. The very things that you would neglect with your 'every man for himself', elitist, 'chosen few' stance...
No. It is time for another approach. Faced with climatic catastrophy, and impending human insanity (under the guise of another 'war'), there is no choice but to change. No longer any 'new lands' to settle in (Read: 'steal').
'Society' will not break down, if it is prepared to negotiate with itself. To reconcile its differences, and forgive itself for its brutal past. It simply has to say 'Sorry, now let's try being friends for a change...' Reconciliation is the only option left, other than total destruction (of 'God's creation', of course. - Turn it into 'hell', maybe?)
So, what else are you gonna do, mergatroid, start nailing people to a crosses? (Been there, done that, remember? - But you know that you can't kill the eternal spirit, right?
)k.
QUOTE
If your 'God' has a problem with that, you will have to ask it, one sunny sunday perhaps, why it even bothered?
And 'of course', "He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
Who said the quote - "The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we CAN imagine." ?
I believe in this quote. It is a statement that will always be applicable to our lives here. Our discussions and diatribes are all about things that are transient, things that change and evolve themselves as a barometer of our observation. How many different related directions are we going in this universe? But we can't even feel the speed of the Milky Way as it travels through space, let alone the expansion of the universe. We don't know what's going with this universe, only data based on our level of measuring, and translating what we measure, and what we measure has an effect on how we measure and the data it yields.
It's all a closed system to us tactilely, and that's currently all we have. And that is not enough for us to see or know what really is. What the real truth of existance is we do not know. But we can say that if there was a God as defined by current religious beliefs there should be a way to prove it publically, and that hasn't been done. In which case it would be constructive to search for another chronology that describes the Creator/Created scenario, one unrelated to religion. Religion is all emotion and no logic. This emotionally deduced god has never been found. The Universe is the epitomy of perfect adherence to premises. It is unwavering in it's scientific logic, googles of change every nanosecond, and it continues to unfold perfectly. Perhaps we should use this template in deducing a Creator/Created scenario and see where this kind of thinking leads to in terms of understanding the mind of a possible God and a more likely relationship to the created.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Sep 27 2006, 06:32 PM)
And 'of course', "He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
Quite right, Jethro!
All,
You know, the only way we (apologies to mergatroid!) are going to further our understanding from this point, is psychologically.
I come to this conclusion because of the 'stale-mate' that both 'religion' and 'science' force upon themselves. Neither will take the next step of reconciliation, as both will have to 'give a little ground' to the other, and rather like the proud little boys that we are taught to be, we would rather fight about it than offer diplomacy for the greater good.
However, once it is realised that these two sides of our character are contained within each and every one of us, necessarily, and for very good reasons, we can reach the root of the problem.
Our biggest obstacle is ourselves, and understanding how and why we do the things we do. What is our true motivation? And why should it be so? Any one of us could have been born anywhere, at any time, and be able to understand life from a completely different perspective. Learning about others, and the reasons they view life the way they do, gives us a rare glimpse into our own lives, through the eyes of these 'others' (Really, just 'other' aspects of Humanity).
I firmly believe that most people only require fairness, and would be happy with it, if they were just given the chance to taste it once in a while!
Likewise, we do not offer ourselves even, such 'fairness', when we deny either our logical intuitions, or our intuitive logic! Our scientific thoughts need 'logical intuition' for something to measure, and our spiritual thoughts need the balance of intuitive logic to make sense of what they perceive.
A good balance between the two would produce an 'Einstein-like' character. Someone not afraid to search in the dark for some hidden logic that others were just too sceptical to ever attempt. And, through the ages, this has happened to Humans on various occasions. This is how such a person might tend to present him/herself...
Here, is such a case of reconciliation, beginning and ending inside of a single individual; A deep understanding of humanity, and a longing search for the individuals' place within it. This was Einstein's motivation. This is the very thing that leads to 'genius'.
And further,
Here, is such a case of reconciliation, beginning and ending inside of a single individual; A deep understanding of humanity, and a longing search for the individuals' place within it. This was Einstein's motivation. This is the very thing that leads to 'genius'.
And further,
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
At around the same time, another science was rapidly further evolving, necessarily, from the questions that were being posed by the findings of the likes of Einstein, et al. These questions were questions about ourselves, as observers, and whether or not we can trust our observations at all! - The Human perspective is an extremely biased one. We have only been able to know the Universe from the perspective we have evolved from, but slowly we are developing the ability to 'remotely view' things that no other life-form has ever had the chance to observe before (as far as we can currently assertain) - not to mention try and actually understand such things, and their strange movements.
All this means that we have reached an empasse. A crucial point in the unfolding of existence, that can now, for the very first time (as far as we are concerned) begin to understand a very different perspective from the one in which we have been so privilaged to evolve in.
Now, there comes a challenge like no other. A challenge in which we are going to have to radically rethink our actions, and their consequences.
The lessons we need to learn are all around us. Do we dare take our presently feeble excuse for 'wisdom' out into the vastness of whatever may lay ahead, when we cannot even cope with clearing up our own mess that we continue to make of this earth?
This is good enough reason to further develop the science of 'psychology'. The fore-runner in this 'space-psychology' was a man who lived at around the same time as Einstein, and indeed, was conversant with him...
Two eminent scientists, apparently advocating a 'non-scientific' outlook to arrive at scientific truths and solutions!
Another relevant quote from Jung...
Two eminent scientists, apparently advocating a 'non-scientific' outlook to arrive at scientific truths and solutions!
Another relevant quote from Jung...
Despite all attempts at denial and obfuscation there is an unconscious factor, a black sun, which is responsible for the surprisingly common phenomenon of masculine split-mindedness, when the right hand mustn't know what the left is doing. This split in the masculine psyche and the regular darkening of the moon in woman together explain the remarkable fact that the woman is accused of all the darkness in a man, while he himself basks in the thought that he is a veritable fount of vitality and illumination for the females in his environment. Actually he would be better advised to shroud the brilliance of his mind in the profoundest doubt. It is not difficult for this type of mind (which besides other things is a great trickster like Mercurius) to admit a host of sins in the most convincing way, and even to combine it with a spurious feeling of ethical surperiority without in the least approximating to a genuine insight. This can never be achieved without the participation of feeling; but the intellect admits feeling only when it is convenient. The novilunium of woman is a source of countless disappointments for man which easily turns to bitterness, though they could equally well be a source of wisdom if they were understood. Naturally this is posssible only if he is prepared to acknowledge his black sun, that is, his Shadow, CW XX: Mysterium Coniunctionis: p331 and p332
The works of both of these 'geniuses' continue to grow in stature, and that is because they both advocate a reconciliation, firstly of the 'self', and then also of the 'collective'. It may interest some to learn that Jung was brought up in a profoundly religious atmosphere, though he later took a much more scientific outlook.
I personally find this is our greatest hope of ever going forwards, and is completely in accordance with the natural forces that we are ultimately all part of. Reconciliation with ourselves, as Mong likes to proclaim...'and beyond!'
k.
Don't spend your life being sorry, mergatroid. (Maybe being obsessed with 'greatness' is something that also brings sorrow, unconsciously?)
I'm happy for you to find your own presentation for reality, and justify it to yourself anyway you see fit. (You are certainly not alone there!)
The fact that you choose to take offence at my words speaks volumes in itself.
This is an alternative possibility for those who are sick to the teeth of conflict. That's why we call it RECONCILIATION. And why it is supposed to be a positive move forwards. This fact seems to displease you, for some strange reason.
You are of course free to ignore all of the evidence already posted, as we are all just as free to ignore any 'bible'.
So, here again...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
...and tell me, now you've studied the site, and all the physics and philosophy involved, what do you think? Anything about the site you would present as positive feedback to improve relations between peoples' current understanding?
Here's how the 'theology' is also accepted...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/theology-mor...d-religions.htm
Any insights you can help with here?
And, if you simply do not believe that RECONCILIATION is possible, then why do you find it such a threat? Surely, you would just ignore it? So, why post here at all?
k.
Again I ask you the question Knot, "What is after death?" Open that mental door, walk inside and look around. (... but you can't though, can you? It's too much of a mental exercise to stay focused, and to bring forth the patience (years maybe) needed to wait for answers.)
Find evidence to prove the existence of a Creator or not, and by doing so slowly turn the beastly political, economic and social worlds of today upside down. Believe it.
I'll stop writing and have another look at those Internet links now Knot ...
Mergatroid,
You are simply not reading anything I post.
People despise 'pity' because they refuse to also accept it as 'compassion'. I can only feel sorry for this point of view. It must be extremely lonely. Quite possibly learned during a lonely and compassionless childhood, and therefore all the more easy to embrace the illusion of an altogether better 'creator' than the one they lost faith in during that upbringing.
This also leads to an 'every man for himself' attitude. Completely at odds with the 'message' that their 'bible' is trying to convey. Hence also, 'paradoxes' become an acceptable part of the individual's psyche, obviously, as they live with them on a permanent basis. However, they are completely unaware that these 'paradoxes' are self-made, as a result of denials dragged from their own past.
Collectively, this is also evident in the languages that we use to describe things we have no real knowledge about. Rather than accept this, and try something new, or try to understand each other for once, it is much more comfortable to stay with what we know, and keep 'paradoxes' as part of the 'understanding'.
How easy, then, to explain how we refuse to move forward, even when we are presented with a perfectly acceptable way to unite our understandings. We simply do not trust each other enough. (This would also explain the psychological need for 'science') Maybe 2000-3000 years of 'divide and rule' has something to do with this?
Here, we can see how the previously political motivations behind 'organised religion' actually 'shoot themselves in the foot', over time, with their violent mis-trust of their own 'subjects', and produce the antithesis of their one-sided beliefs, in physical manifestation ('Science', as 'proof' of what necessarily exists/does not exist).
k.
You know, the only way we (apologies to mergatroid!) are going to further our understanding from this point, is psychologically.
I come to this conclusion because of the 'stale-mate' that both 'religion' and 'science' force upon themselves. Neither will take the next step of reconciliation, as both will have to 'give a little ground' to the other, and rather like the proud little boys that we are taught to be, we would rather fight about it than offer diplomacy for the greater good.
However, once it is realised that these two sides of our character are contained within each and every one of us, necessarily, and for very good reasons, we can reach the root of the problem.
Our biggest obstacle is ourselves, and understanding how and why we do the things we do. What is our true motivation? And why should it be so? Any one of us could have been born anywhere, at any time, and be able to understand life from a completely different perspective. Learning about others, and the reasons they view life the way they do, gives us a rare glimpse into our own lives, through the eyes of these 'others' (Really, just 'other' aspects of Humanity).
I firmly believe that most people only require fairness, and would be happy with it, if they were just given the chance to taste it once in a while!
Likewise, we do not offer ourselves even, such 'fairness', when we deny either our logical intuitions, or our intuitive logic! Our scientific thoughts need 'logical intuition' for something to measure, and our spiritual thoughts need the balance of intuitive logic to make sense of what they perceive.
A good balance between the two would produce an 'Einstein-like' character. Someone not afraid to search in the dark for some hidden logic that others were just too sceptical to ever attempt. And, through the ages, this has happened to Humans on various occasions. This is how such a person might tend to present him/herself...
QUOTE
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Here, is such a case of reconciliation, beginning and ending inside of a single individual; A deep understanding of humanity, and a longing search for the individuals' place within it. This was Einstein's motivation. This is the very thing that leads to 'genius'.
And further,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954) |
Here, is such a case of reconciliation, beginning and ending inside of a single individual; A deep understanding of humanity, and a longing search for the individuals' place within it. This was Einstein's motivation. This is the very thing that leads to 'genius'.
And further,
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
At around the same time, another science was rapidly further evolving, necessarily, from the questions that were being posed by the findings of the likes of Einstein, et al. These questions were questions about ourselves, as observers, and whether or not we can trust our observations at all! - The Human perspective is an extremely biased one. We have only been able to know the Universe from the perspective we have evolved from, but slowly we are developing the ability to 'remotely view' things that no other life-form has ever had the chance to observe before (as far as we can currently assertain) - not to mention try and actually understand such things, and their strange movements.
All this means that we have reached an empasse. A crucial point in the unfolding of existence, that can now, for the very first time (as far as we are concerned) begin to understand a very different perspective from the one in which we have been so privilaged to evolve in.
Now, there comes a challenge like no other. A challenge in which we are going to have to radically rethink our actions, and their consequences.
The lessons we need to learn are all around us. Do we dare take our presently feeble excuse for 'wisdom' out into the vastness of whatever may lay ahead, when we cannot even cope with clearing up our own mess that we continue to make of this earth?
This is good enough reason to further develop the science of 'psychology'. The fore-runner in this 'space-psychology' was a man who lived at around the same time as Einstein, and indeed, was conversant with him...
QUOTE
Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul. -- Carl Jung
Two eminent scientists, apparently advocating a 'non-scientific' outlook to arrive at scientific truths and solutions!
Another relevant quote from Jung...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul. -- Carl Jung |
Two eminent scientists, apparently advocating a 'non-scientific' outlook to arrive at scientific truths and solutions!
Another relevant quote from Jung...
Despite all attempts at denial and obfuscation there is an unconscious factor, a black sun, which is responsible for the surprisingly common phenomenon of masculine split-mindedness, when the right hand mustn't know what the left is doing. This split in the masculine psyche and the regular darkening of the moon in woman together explain the remarkable fact that the woman is accused of all the darkness in a man, while he himself basks in the thought that he is a veritable fount of vitality and illumination for the females in his environment. Actually he would be better advised to shroud the brilliance of his mind in the profoundest doubt. It is not difficult for this type of mind (which besides other things is a great trickster like Mercurius) to admit a host of sins in the most convincing way, and even to combine it with a spurious feeling of ethical surperiority without in the least approximating to a genuine insight. This can never be achieved without the participation of feeling; but the intellect admits feeling only when it is convenient. The novilunium of woman is a source of countless disappointments for man which easily turns to bitterness, though they could equally well be a source of wisdom if they were understood. Naturally this is posssible only if he is prepared to acknowledge his black sun, that is, his Shadow, CW XX: Mysterium Coniunctionis: p331 and p332
The works of both of these 'geniuses' continue to grow in stature, and that is because they both advocate a reconciliation, firstly of the 'self', and then also of the 'collective'. It may interest some to learn that Jung was brought up in a profoundly religious atmosphere, though he later took a much more scientific outlook.
I personally find this is our greatest hope of ever going forwards, and is completely in accordance with the natural forces that we are ultimately all part of. Reconciliation with ourselves, as Mong likes to proclaim...'and beyond!'
k.
QUOTE (Knot of this world+Sep 27 2006, 07:02 AM)
You (intentionally?) misread my thoughts on 'God'.
... of ('God's'?) people, who continue to suffer ...
..., but I have already found my 'creator'. I had two parents for my physical creation, and have an ongoing, continually evolving, connection to the (collective) 'Greater Spirit' of Infinite Space from which everything is originated.
I am happy for you to call IT 'God', if it so pleases you ...
... Are only a 'chosen few' allowed to know their own 'God'?
... If your 'God' has a problem with that, you will have to ask it, ...
... other than total destruction (of 'God's creation', of course. - Turn it into 'hell', maybe?)
Sorry Knots, I thought you were looking for a deliberating device of some kind; to sift through the perceptions of life for the facts, for proof to use in argument to another to ascertain the existence or non-existence of some kind of Creator of the universe. Perhaps I should imagine myself in a tavern now and in dialog with another individual, the hours have flown by ...
Question: Could you ever imagine anyone standing on some cosmopolitan stage and discoursing in a methodical, logical and rational manner to an audience of distinguished dignitaries, and such said person then presenting a sober, mature twenty-first century discourse on the existence or non-existence of a Creator. Similar to what Einstein, or Richard Feynman did do when given a podium to present whatever was on their minds?
Knots, you seem in no mood, or possess the desire to exercise a frame of mind to gear yourself into ever bringing or presenting any proof, or facts. Your views are simply one more opinion thrown into the multitude of others. Nothing "wrong" with that. But some men are born great; some men achieve greatness; and some have greatness thrust upon them.
Ah ...! the simple life. How great it is, right Knots?
... of ('God's'?) people, who continue to suffer ...
..., but I have already found my 'creator'. I had two parents for my physical creation, and have an ongoing, continually evolving, connection to the (collective) 'Greater Spirit' of Infinite Space from which everything is originated.
I am happy for you to call IT 'God', if it so pleases you ...
... Are only a 'chosen few' allowed to know their own 'God'?
... If your 'God' has a problem with that, you will have to ask it, ...
... other than total destruction (of 'God's creation', of course. - Turn it into 'hell', maybe?)
Sorry Knots, I thought you were looking for a deliberating device of some kind; to sift through the perceptions of life for the facts, for proof to use in argument to another to ascertain the existence or non-existence of some kind of Creator of the universe. Perhaps I should imagine myself in a tavern now and in dialog with another individual, the hours have flown by ...
Question: Could you ever imagine anyone standing on some cosmopolitan stage and discoursing in a methodical, logical and rational manner to an audience of distinguished dignitaries, and such said person then presenting a sober, mature twenty-first century discourse on the existence or non-existence of a Creator. Similar to what Einstein, or Richard Feynman did do when given a podium to present whatever was on their minds?
Knots, you seem in no mood, or possess the desire to exercise a frame of mind to gear yourself into ever bringing or presenting any proof, or facts. Your views are simply one more opinion thrown into the multitude of others. Nothing "wrong" with that. But some men are born great; some men achieve greatness; and some have greatness thrust upon them.
Ah ...! the simple life. How great it is, right Knots?
Don't spend your life being sorry, mergatroid. (Maybe being obsessed with 'greatness' is something that also brings sorrow, unconsciously?)
I'm happy for you to find your own presentation for reality, and justify it to yourself anyway you see fit. (You are certainly not alone there!)
The fact that you choose to take offence at my words speaks volumes in itself.
This is an alternative possibility for those who are sick to the teeth of conflict. That's why we call it RECONCILIATION. And why it is supposed to be a positive move forwards. This fact seems to displease you, for some strange reason.
You are of course free to ignore all of the evidence already posted, as we are all just as free to ignore any 'bible'.
So, here again...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
...and tell me, now you've studied the site, and all the physics and philosophy involved, what do you think? Anything about the site you would present as positive feedback to improve relations between peoples' current understanding?
Here's how the 'theology' is also accepted...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/theology-mor...d-religions.htm
Any insights you can help with here?
And, if you simply do not believe that RECONCILIATION is possible, then why do you find it such a threat? Surely, you would just ignore it? So, why post here at all?
k.
A quick glance at the links and I'll simply say,
Imagine a world (social order) where every single person on earth had a frame of mind to simply take care of themselves, instead of so many people with these half-baked attitudes and notions for running around trying to "help" everyone. Imagine some so comfortable in life that they spend so much time in their waking lives to care if a lobster feels pain, or the mink animal is exploited for its skin-fur.
There are very few people who actually require the human (and strong) emotion of pity attached to them, and the concurrent efforts of time and money (resources) put to rectify their pitiable plights. There are many people though who simply have no meaning, direction or purpose in life, adopting misguided notions of altruism and fostering this infectious atmosphere of weirdness into the day to day world of others. Immature notions of lobster rights and Pol Pot massacres can be entertained and then dealt with when put in proper context. That context is whether there is a Creator or not.
In with the new, out with the old. A thousand years from now the people living then will live and grow in a world where a sober, mature realization for the existence of the Creator puts everything in context. Islam doesn't exist in this future then, as the Mayan does not today. Other examples I could give takes away from the point I'm trying to make now. All intellectual thought on Utopian world order (from those Internet links) viz., reconciliation, does not include the fact that every single person will someday, of course, die, so the meaning of life, and it's answers, the universal truth of the matter will never be found by considering the thoughts of the people contained on those two web pages.
Again I ask you the question Knot, "What is after death?" Open that mental door, walk inside and look around. (... but you can't though, can you? It's too much of a mental exercise to stay focused, and to bring forth the patience (years maybe) needed to wait for answers.)
Find evidence to prove the existence of a Creator or not, and by doing so slowly turn the beastly political, economic and social worlds of today upside down. Believe it.
I'll stop writing and have another look at those Internet links now Knot ...
Imagine a world (social order) where every single person on earth had a frame of mind to simply take care of themselves, instead of so many people with these half-baked attitudes and notions for running around trying to "help" everyone. Imagine some so comfortable in life that they spend so much time in their waking lives to care if a lobster feels pain, or the mink animal is exploited for its skin-fur.
There are very few people who actually require the human (and strong) emotion of pity attached to them, and the concurrent efforts of time and money (resources) put to rectify their pitiable plights. There are many people though who simply have no meaning, direction or purpose in life, adopting misguided notions of altruism and fostering this infectious atmosphere of weirdness into the day to day world of others. Immature notions of lobster rights and Pol Pot massacres can be entertained and then dealt with when put in proper context. That context is whether there is a Creator or not.
In with the new, out with the old. A thousand years from now the people living then will live and grow in a world where a sober, mature realization for the existence of the Creator puts everything in context. Islam doesn't exist in this future then, as the Mayan does not today. Other examples I could give takes away from the point I'm trying to make now. All intellectual thought on Utopian world order (from those Internet links) viz., reconciliation, does not include the fact that every single person will someday, of course, die, so the meaning of life, and it's answers, the universal truth of the matter will never be found by considering the thoughts of the people contained on those two web pages.
Again I ask you the question Knot, "What is after death?" Open that mental door, walk inside and look around. (... but you can't though, can you? It's too much of a mental exercise to stay focused, and to bring forth the patience (years maybe) needed to wait for answers.)
Find evidence to prove the existence of a Creator or not, and by doing so slowly turn the beastly political, economic and social worlds of today upside down. Believe it.
I'll stop writing and have another look at those Internet links now Knot ...
I can only read things on those two pages for so long. I know what they're talking about and I've been there; the things said are not relevant to what I'm doing. I'll keep the links for the novice I may run across though.
I post here Knots intending critical insight from critical minded minds. Wherever I surf though I seem to only attract frauds.
So it goes.
I post here Knots intending critical insight from critical minded minds. Wherever I surf though I seem to only attract frauds.
So it goes.
QUOTE (mergatroid+Sep 30 2006, 01:10 PM)
Again I ask you the question Knot, "What is after death?" Open that mental door, walk inside and look around. (... but you can't though, can you? It's too much of a mental exercise to stay focused, and to bring forth the patience (years maybe) needed to wait for answers.)
Find evidence to prove the existence of a Creator or not, and by doing so slowly turn the beastly political, economic and social worlds of today upside down. Believe it.
I'll stop writing and have another look at those Internet links now Knot ...
Mergatroid,
You are simply not reading anything I post.
QUOTE
My motivation is to see people happily communicating with Honesty and Trust. Making friends with each other instead of perpetual enemies, and leaving the beauty of this world to be savoured by our subsequent selves. I am still lucky. I still get to enjoy this beauty, and appreciate it, regularly. If your 'God' has a problem with that, you will have to ask it, one sunny sunday perhaps, why it even bothered?
For the record, I already have, and my conscience is clear, because this is what I found...
If our connection to any 'God' is anything at all, then it is Love, Compassion, Honesty and Trust. The very things that you would neglect with your 'every man for himself', elitist, 'chosen few' stance...
For the record, I already have, and my conscience is clear, because this is what I found...
If our connection to any 'God' is anything at all, then it is Love, Compassion, Honesty and Trust. The very things that you would neglect with your 'every man for himself', elitist, 'chosen few' stance...
People despise 'pity' because they refuse to also accept it as 'compassion'. I can only feel sorry for this point of view. It must be extremely lonely. Quite possibly learned during a lonely and compassionless childhood, and therefore all the more easy to embrace the illusion of an altogether better 'creator' than the one they lost faith in during that upbringing.
This also leads to an 'every man for himself' attitude. Completely at odds with the 'message' that their 'bible' is trying to convey. Hence also, 'paradoxes' become an acceptable part of the individual's psyche, obviously, as they live with them on a permanent basis. However, they are completely unaware that these 'paradoxes' are self-made, as a result of denials dragged from their own past.
Collectively, this is also evident in the languages that we use to describe things we have no real knowledge about. Rather than accept this, and try something new, or try to understand each other for once, it is much more comfortable to stay with what we know, and keep 'paradoxes' as part of the 'understanding'.
How easy, then, to explain how we refuse to move forward, even when we are presented with a perfectly acceptable way to unite our understandings. We simply do not trust each other enough. (This would also explain the psychological need for 'science') Maybe 2000-3000 years of 'divide and rule' has something to do with this?
Here, we can see how the previously political motivations behind 'organised religion' actually 'shoot themselves in the foot', over time, with their violent mis-trust of their own 'subjects', and produce the antithesis of their one-sided beliefs, in physical manifestation ('Science', as 'proof' of what necessarily exists/does not exist).
k.
Hello, Science-Religion Reconcilers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Mergatroid and Knot of this World: What thought-stimulating arguments! Congratulations to both of you!
Specifically, Knot of this World, since I came to know you in April, I sense your writing is now getting more and more incisive, insightful, and mature; particularly with your references to Einstein and Jung above—the 2 of the most outstanding thinkers in Science and Religion of the 20th century, also representing 2 of the finest in our humanity on Earth!
With that in mind, Soundhertz, as we discussed before, this thread shall not be limited to the subjects in Science and Religion alone; any transcendental evidences of our human Mind or Consciousness are welcome—as long as we can present and justify their existences at any level, quantum or spatial!
Personally, I’ve had been more concerned with the dialogue, and of course, the reconciliation of Science and Religion herein as well as elsewhere worldwide; especially encouraging how Evolutionists should learn to converse with Creationists without thumbing each other down; but mutually understanding and learning from each other, as I’ve had encountered with a creationist-philosopher here, Natural selection is recursive (PhysOrgEU; September 10).
However, let me present an experience, wherein I encountered a group of hostile fundamentalist Evolutionists who ended up trying to censor my discussion entries, which I then post elsewhere here, Flock of Dodos (ScienceBlogsUSA; October 3) relevantly, and as quoted below:
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/3/6usct2:58p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Mergatroid and Knot of this World: What thought-stimulating arguments! Congratulations to both of you!
Specifically, Knot of this World, since I came to know you in April, I sense your writing is now getting more and more incisive, insightful, and mature; particularly with your references to Einstein and Jung above—the 2 of the most outstanding thinkers in Science and Religion of the 20th century, also representing 2 of the finest in our humanity on Earth!
With that in mind, Soundhertz, as we discussed before, this thread shall not be limited to the subjects in Science and Religion alone; any transcendental evidences of our human Mind or Consciousness are welcome—as long as we can present and justify their existences at any level, quantum or spatial!
Personally, I’ve had been more concerned with the dialogue, and of course, the reconciliation of Science and Religion herein as well as elsewhere worldwide; especially encouraging how Evolutionists should learn to converse with Creationists without thumbing each other down; but mutually understanding and learning from each other, as I’ve had encountered with a creationist-philosopher here, Natural selection is recursive (PhysOrgEU; September 10).
However, let me present an experience, wherein I encountered a group of hostile fundamentalist Evolutionists who ended up trying to censor my discussion entries, which I then post elsewhere here, Flock of Dodos (ScienceBlogsUSA; October 3) relevantly, and as quoted below:
QUOTE
To the Editor, Pharyngula Readers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Subject: Is The Panda's Thumb becoming a flock of Dodos?
Over the weekend, I stumbled upon The Panda's Thumb website, whose mission is to gather patrons to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.
In a thread on.More anti-evolution rumblings in the UK (PandasThumbUSA; September 30), as I was trying to support a very critical thinker Clastito on discussions on Science vs. Scientism in general, and Evolution vs. Evolutionism (Dawkins) in particular. In the heat of our discussions, I was denied of my response entries over the weekend. Are the moderators at The Panda's Thumb adopting the ways of the Dodos?
Here are some pertinent and relevant quotes from Clastito’s posts, and my subsequently censored entry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------
“Almost pure barking. Irrelevant criticisms and mutual reassurances. Just the expected behaviour of those who like moving in herds. No arguments there, and thus, no answers required.
“By the way, you know that you are talking to a sectarian, when you say something they do not like, they immediately attempt a classification… “he’s a creationist” “a commie” “this troll” you know, to label and dismiss, without paying attention to actual arguments. Sooo predictable… you can’t figure me out, but I can figure many here, easily.
“To agree so much with Dawkins means you are into scientism. It is easy to think this way. Therefore, Dawkins fans are abundant, always lurking… but rarely contributing with an actual argument. More like cheerleaders.
“There we go… thinly veiled, if at all, accusations of religiousness and creationism, all over again. You guys certainly are masters in finding excuses to wave things away to not bother to think. So predictable. Stop it, and THINK!!!!
“My point is clear enough. The reason you have problems with the creationists, and will definitely continue to have them, both in the UK and the USA, is that in your pragmatists culture who loves simple explanations and one-liners, an agreement exists on both sides to discuss perfect adaptation, with intelligent design and adaptationism as the alternative explanations. Of course the fact that Dawkins pushes his flawed utradarwinian views as “the science” and further wishes to impose atheism to the extreme of suggesting that children growing up in a religion is “child abuse” is basically begging for people to identify his silliness with evolution itself and gives them good argumentative tools to keep the nasty, never-dying debate going.
“It seems you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism “a la Dawkins”, where people who disagree with you have some “[psychological] problem of unreason” (chuckle), OR you are some kind of religious loony (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism.
“And where is humanism in all this? You know, some TRUE left-thinking? Oh, right… You don’t have any. You are all waiting for either god or science to effortlessly bring utopia.
“Many of the things I say are quite undeniable, like the persistence of creationism, the bestselling popularity of both Behe and Dawkins, the pervasiveness of adaptationism in “popular biology” documentaries, the capitalist origins of Darwinism… So be more specific about what you want. Statistics that prove Dawkins is part of the problem? Yeah, probably (chuckle). Hey, I want some that prove he is NOT part of the problem. I guess its just useless for anyone to point out when he says something silly, no matter how clear his mistake, huh?
“But you see, we can use our brains to follow logical implications and argue…its not like if we don’t have some statistics proving probably nothing we have to throw our arms in the air and cancel all thinking process because it is unassailable mystery, if you get what I mean. So, I repeat, if you demand evidence, say what kind of evidence. Think it well!!! And stop whining about “me smearing everyone here,” you look like some rusty old patriot. I am not talking of all PT or even of you (unless you feel so), I’m describing general cultural conditions that you have, and its up to you to ponder if you are part of the silliness or what can you do about it. Because it’s there, whether you like it or not. And no, I am not asking for someone to kill Dawkins. Try saying something sophisticated, please. That kind of argument is a joke, the kind of one-liner Steve Colbert would use.
“The answer that sounds more “[scientistic]” or atheistic does not necessarily address the problem, even if you get cheers from the herd. It is putting an end before adequate examination of a problem. Usually it will lead you into some truly stupid simplistic mistake… and ultimately, you will be a very bad scientist indeed. Things are not simple. No one-liners from me. Sorry.
“If Dawkins says the same about atheism [in The God Delusion] it just strikes me as equally silly!!!!. Such improvised, inelegant “fairness” does not make it right, it just makes it worse. Usually when you say something silly you have to say something equally silly if you want to merely balance it without taking it away. It’s obvious that parents raising their kids in atheism is NOT child abuse. It doesn’t mean they cannot turn religious, later on, either.
“No wonder that I am not be interested in analyzing every lousy utterance of Dawkins of feeble band aids he has applied over the cracks of his scientism. Reading Dawkins to me is as boring and annoying as reading Behe, sorry to say. The silliness that Dawkins produces in his fans is all over the place on the science blogs… and that’s quite enough for me, thanks.”
Well said again, and again, Clastito! I tried to get my few words in, on Sunday and Monday, but The Panda's Thumb was down—or enacting to censor my responses—so I’m going to try it again—3 times I tried but in vain—as follows:
“I would hate to think everyone over here is into scientism “a la Dawkins.””
Well said, Clastito! Whereas I’ve had defined the disciples or groupies of Dawkinsian Evolutionism, Scientism, as “ibots”—intellectual robots—here (since April 2), Religious credulity and the recent spate of godly 'science' (ScienceBlogsUSA; July 25).
Briefly, Dawkins —> Evolutionism (in The Selfish Gene) —> Memetics (a faulty theory of our Mind) —> Atheism as Anti-Religionism (in The God Delusion; and Dennett’s Breaking the Spell)!
Therefore, Anton Mates, Dennett’s “attacking religion using [evolutionism] as a banner,” has had come from Dawkinsian Evolutionism of the hopping meme—a transmissible cultural unit including Religion—which they have had likened to the viral contagion of our Mind! What a rhetorically and utterly fashionable nonsense of the gloriously Dawkinsian kind since 1976—please see also my critiques of EO Wilson’s “human-ant-ism” here, Why do creationists pick on Evolution? (Physorg.com; April 18).
Nonetheless, with much self-introspection, Wilson has had rescinded his “human-ant-ism” as a theory of our Mind and Nature, as once he had tried hard to propagate—even outside of his entomological expertise—in his 1975 Sociobiology! Whereas Dawkins—the diehard Emperor of Evolutionism and of the hopping Myths (a Scientism)—is still trying to go out running without any clothes on—chuckle!—please see also my comments here, Dawkins-Paxman interview (ScienceBlogsUSA; September 28).
---------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter—just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/3/6usct2:25a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Subject: Is The Panda's Thumb becoming a flock of Dodos?
Over the weekend, I stumbled upon The Panda's Thumb website, whose mission is to gather patrons to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.
In a thread on.More anti-evolution rumblings in the UK (PandasThumbUSA; September 30), as I was trying to support a very critical thinker Clastito on discussions on Science vs. Scientism in general, and Evolution vs. Evolutionism (Dawkins) in particular. In the heat of our discussions, I was denied of my response entries over the weekend. Are the moderators at The Panda's Thumb adopting the ways of the Dodos?
Here are some pertinent and relevant quotes from Clastito’s posts, and my subsequently censored entry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------
“Almost pure barking. Irrelevant criticisms and mutual reassurances. Just the expected behaviour of those who like moving in herds. No arguments there, and thus, no answers required.
“By the way, you know that you are talking to a sectarian, when you say something they do not like, they immediately attempt a classification… “he’s a creationist” “a commie” “this troll” you know, to label and dismiss, without paying attention to actual arguments. Sooo predictable… you can’t figure me out, but I can figure many here, easily.
“To agree so much with Dawkins means you are into scientism. It is easy to think this way. Therefore, Dawkins fans are abundant, always lurking… but rarely contributing with an actual argument. More like cheerleaders.
“There we go… thinly veiled, if at all, accusations of religiousness and creationism, all over again. You guys certainly are masters in finding excuses to wave things away to not bother to think. So predictable. Stop it, and THINK!!!!
“My point is clear enough. The reason you have problems with the creationists, and will definitely continue to have them, both in the UK and the USA, is that in your pragmatists culture who loves simple explanations and one-liners, an agreement exists on both sides to discuss perfect adaptation, with intelligent design and adaptationism as the alternative explanations. Of course the fact that Dawkins pushes his flawed utradarwinian views as “the science” and further wishes to impose atheism to the extreme of suggesting that children growing up in a religion is “child abuse” is basically begging for people to identify his silliness with evolution itself and gives them good argumentative tools to keep the nasty, never-dying debate going.
“It seems you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism “a la Dawkins”, where people who disagree with you have some “[psychological] problem of unreason” (chuckle), OR you are some kind of religious loony (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism.
“And where is humanism in all this? You know, some TRUE left-thinking? Oh, right… You don’t have any. You are all waiting for either god or science to effortlessly bring utopia.
“Many of the things I say are quite undeniable, like the persistence of creationism, the bestselling popularity of both Behe and Dawkins, the pervasiveness of adaptationism in “popular biology” documentaries, the capitalist origins of Darwinism… So be more specific about what you want. Statistics that prove Dawkins is part of the problem? Yeah, probably (chuckle). Hey, I want some that prove he is NOT part of the problem. I guess its just useless for anyone to point out when he says something silly, no matter how clear his mistake, huh?
“But you see, we can use our brains to follow logical implications and argue…its not like if we don’t have some statistics proving probably nothing we have to throw our arms in the air and cancel all thinking process because it is unassailable mystery, if you get what I mean. So, I repeat, if you demand evidence, say what kind of evidence. Think it well!!! And stop whining about “me smearing everyone here,” you look like some rusty old patriot. I am not talking of all PT or even of you (unless you feel so), I’m describing general cultural conditions that you have, and its up to you to ponder if you are part of the silliness or what can you do about it. Because it’s there, whether you like it or not. And no, I am not asking for someone to kill Dawkins. Try saying something sophisticated, please. That kind of argument is a joke, the kind of one-liner Steve Colbert would use.
“The answer that sounds more “[scientistic]” or atheistic does not necessarily address the problem, even if you get cheers from the herd. It is putting an end before adequate examination of a problem. Usually it will lead you into some truly stupid simplistic mistake… and ultimately, you will be a very bad scientist indeed. Things are not simple. No one-liners from me. Sorry.
“If Dawkins says the same about atheism [in The God Delusion] it just strikes me as equally silly!!!!. Such improvised, inelegant “fairness” does not make it right, it just makes it worse. Usually when you say something silly you have to say something equally silly if you want to merely balance it without taking it away. It’s obvious that parents raising their kids in atheism is NOT child abuse. It doesn’t mean they cannot turn religious, later on, either.
“No wonder that I am not be interested in analyzing every lousy utterance of Dawkins of feeble band aids he has applied over the cracks of his scientism. Reading Dawkins to me is as boring and annoying as reading Behe, sorry to say. The silliness that Dawkins produces in his fans is all over the place on the science blogs… and that’s quite enough for me, thanks.”
Well said again, and again, Clastito! I tried to get my few words in, on Sunday and Monday, but The Panda's Thumb was down—or enacting to censor my responses—so I’m going to try it again—3 times I tried but in vain—as follows:
“I would hate to think everyone over here is into scientism “a la Dawkins.””
Well said, Clastito! Whereas I’ve had defined the disciples or groupies of Dawkinsian Evolutionism, Scientism, as “ibots”—intellectual robots—here (since April 2), Religious credulity and the recent spate of godly 'science' (ScienceBlogsUSA; July 25).
Briefly, Dawkins —> Evolutionism (in The Selfish Gene) —> Memetics (a faulty theory of our Mind) —> Atheism as Anti-Religionism (in The God Delusion; and Dennett’s Breaking the Spell)!
Therefore, Anton Mates, Dennett’s “attacking religion using [evolutionism] as a banner,” has had come from Dawkinsian Evolutionism of the hopping meme—a transmissible cultural unit including Religion—which they have had likened to the viral contagion of our Mind! What a rhetorically and utterly fashionable nonsense of the gloriously Dawkinsian kind since 1976—please see also my critiques of EO Wilson’s “human-ant-ism” here, Why do creationists pick on Evolution? (Physorg.com; April 18).
Nonetheless, with much self-introspection, Wilson has had rescinded his “human-ant-ism” as a theory of our Mind and Nature, as once he had tried hard to propagate—even outside of his entomological expertise—in his 1975 Sociobiology! Whereas Dawkins—the diehard Emperor of Evolutionism and of the hopping Myths (a Scientism)—is still trying to go out running without any clothes on—chuckle!
—please see also my comments here, Dawkins-Paxman interview (ScienceBlogsUSA; September 28).---------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter—just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/3/6usct2:25a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/3/6usct2:58p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hello Mong,
Thank you for gracious sentiments! Hopefully, we are all evolving, and it is very kind of you to not only notice but to also comment. Your professionalism puts many to shame, including myself, and has helped me strive for a higher standard in my own work. (Not trying to excuse the fact that I still enjoy the occasional frivolous moment! - But there's a time and a place, I think! )
It is not often that anyone gets to converse with an author before purchasing their book, in fact quite a rare privilege, and so, please inform, which is the best way to purchase your book? Directly, or via any other particular outlet?
I recently posted this thought in another thread, but how true do you believe it to be?
...Anyway, something is Infinite, and its not just a math symbol, as Humans have been contemplating and occasionally understanding this 'infinite aspect' for many thousands of years. In fact, it is the only intuition that Humans 100% empirically agree on...
This, based on the 'infinite aspect' of all religions, and transcendental 'paths' of 'enlightenment', indeed, anyone who has taken the time and energy to contemplate the epistemological origins, not forgetting the scientific intuitions of Bruno, Lorentz, et al...
k.
QUOTE
Knot of this World, since I came to know you in April, I sense your writing is now getting more and more incisive, insightful, and mature; particularly with your references to Einstein and Jung above—the 2 of the most outstanding thinkers in Science and Religion of the 20th century, also representing 2 of the finest in our humanity on Earth!
Thank you for gracious sentiments! Hopefully, we are all evolving, and it is very kind of you to not only notice but to also comment. Your professionalism puts many to shame, including myself, and has helped me strive for a higher standard in my own work. (Not trying to excuse the fact that I still enjoy the occasional frivolous moment!
- But there's a time and a place, I think! )It is not often that anyone gets to converse with an author before purchasing their book, in fact quite a rare privilege, and so, please inform, which is the best way to purchase your book? Directly, or via any other particular outlet?
I recently posted this thought in another thread, but how true do you believe it to be?
...Anyway, something is Infinite, and its not just a math symbol, as Humans have been contemplating and occasionally understanding this 'infinite aspect' for many thousands of years. In fact, it is the only intuition that Humans 100% empirically agree on...
This, based on the 'infinite aspect' of all religions, and transcendental 'paths' of 'enlightenment', indeed, anyone who has taken the time and energy to contemplate the epistemological origins, not forgetting the scientific intuitions of Bruno, Lorentz, et al...
k.
It is the idea of the 'Collective Unconscious' that interests me most. This is the place where all of our new ideas come from. And, once upon a time, the idea of 'God' was also a new one.
Since such a time, many people have had intuitive ideas about the 'infinite aspect' of 'God(s)', among many other wonderful (and not so wonderful) ideas and notions, that have lead us to our present-day situation.
Nowadays, our 'new ideas' are centred around 'aliens', and other 'parapsychological phenomena', and any ideas about Space are fuelled by the images we receive from recent technologies, such as 'Hubble' (HST).
However, from a psychological viewpoint (and after all, it IS our minds that we use to decipher all these exterior sensations with!) all of these recent ideas, are still just extensions of our previous ways of thinking.
Thus, even the great Einstein is happy to admit to "...standing on the shoulders of giants."
The same extension of previous thought can be seen in the 'Big Bang' Theory, which is really still a 'creationist' theory, attempting to become 'scientific'. And is also a prime example of how many thousands of years of 'religious' thought has shaped even the roots of our languages, to permeate our current understandings. Thus the need for a further 'pulling away' by the perceived 'scientific community'.
The 'aliens' are in fact us! - Or our unconscious perceptions of what we are becoming, which manifest through various art forms, firstly. (Sci-Fi books, then films, TV, etc, finally into the 'collective conscious' as established 'new ideas'...) It would not be difficult to predict a 'God' of the 22nd/23rd century having silvery-green skin, a long, thin, and hairless body, with huge dark eyes!
I believe the 'Collective Conscious/Unconscious' is where we will need to look, for answers both scientific AND spiritually intuitive, as this is the area (the mind) where the two are no longer mutually exclusive... and hence, where true reconciliation starts.
k.
Since such a time, many people have had intuitive ideas about the 'infinite aspect' of 'God(s)', among many other wonderful (and not so wonderful) ideas and notions, that have lead us to our present-day situation.
Nowadays, our 'new ideas' are centred around 'aliens', and other 'parapsychological phenomena', and any ideas about Space are fuelled by the images we receive from recent technologies, such as 'Hubble' (HST).
However, from a psychological viewpoint (and after all, it IS our minds that we use to decipher all these exterior sensations with!) all of these recent ideas, are still just extensions of our previous ways of thinking.
Thus, even the great Einstein is happy to admit to "...standing on the shoulders of giants."
The same extension of previous thought can be seen in the 'Big Bang' Theory, which is really still a 'creationist' theory, attempting to become 'scientific'. And is also a prime example of how many thousands of years of 'religious' thought has shaped even the roots of our languages, to permeate our current understandings. Thus the need for a further 'pulling away' by the perceived 'scientific community'.
The 'aliens' are in fact us! - Or our unconscious perceptions of what we are becoming, which manifest through various art forms, firstly. (Sci-Fi books, then films, TV, etc, finally into the 'collective conscious' as established 'new ideas'...) It would not be difficult to predict a 'God' of the 22nd/23rd century having silvery-green skin, a long, thin, and hairless body, with huge dark eyes!
I believe the 'Collective Conscious/Unconscious' is where we will need to look, for answers both scientific AND spiritually intuitive, as this is the area (the mind) where the two are no longer mutually exclusive... and hence, where true reconciliation starts.
k.
Hello, Science-Religion Reconcilers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Knot of this World: Thanks for your kind words!
In my simple blog listed below, there is a list of bookstores worldwide. You might be able to find one near you; or you could order directly from the publisher iUniverse.com (USA).
In my simple blog listed below, there is a list of bookstores worldwide. You might be able to find one near you; or you could order directly from the publisher iUniverse.com (USA).
I recently posted this thought in another thread, but how true do you believe it to be?
...Anyway, something is Infinite, and its not just a math symbol, as Humans have been contemplating and occasionally understanding this 'infinite aspect' for many thousands of years[1]. In fact, it is the only intuition that Humans 100% empirically agree on[2]...
Knot of this World: Thanks for your kind words!
QUOTE
It is not often that anyone gets to converse with an author before purchasing their book, in fact quite a rare privilege, and so, please inform, which is the best way to purchase your book? Directly, or via any other particular outlet?
In my simple blog listed below, there is a list of bookstores worldwide. You might be able to find one near you; or you could order directly from the publisher iUniverse.com (USA).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is not often that anyone gets to converse with an author before purchasing their book, in fact quite a rare privilege, and so, please inform, which is the best way to purchase your book? Directly, or via any other particular outlet? |
In my simple blog listed below, there is a list of bookstores worldwide. You might be able to find one near you; or you could order directly from the publisher iUniverse.com (USA).
I recently posted this thought in another thread, but how true do you believe it to be?
...Anyway, something is Infinite, and its not just a math symbol, as Humans have been contemplating and occasionally understanding this 'infinite aspect' for many thousands of years[1]. In fact, it is the only intuition that Humans 100% empirically agree on[2]...
1] Without reading the whole post, by conventional wisdom, this something may mean God?! But knowing your philosophy before hand: Do you mean it is Space?!
2] Again, your intuition may mean imagination, creativity, etc. But in your mind: Do you mean the WSM?!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/4/6usct12:59a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
2] Again, your intuition may mean imagination, creativity, etc. But in your mind: Do you mean the WSM?!
QUOTE
The same extension of previous thought can be seen in the 'Big Bang' Theory, which is really still a 'creationist' theory, attempting to become 'scientific'. And is also a prime example of how many thousands of years of 'religious' thought has shaped even the roots of our languages, to permeate our current understandings. Thus the need for a further 'pulling away' by the perceived 'scientific community'.
I think this is exactly what I’ve had commented here, What existed before the Big Bang? (PhysOrgEU; October 3).Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/4/6usct12:59a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hi Mong,
- This would be ALL spiritual/meditative intuitions; i.e. 'God', 'Tao', 'Brahman', etc, all of which have an infinite/eternal aspect, that could be interpreted as intuition of Infinite Space.
- This would be ALL spiritual/meditative intuitions; i.e. 'God', 'Tao', 'Brahman', etc, all of which have an infinite/eternal aspect, that could be interpreted as intuition of Infinite Space.
2] Again, your intuition may mean imagination, creativity, etc. But in your mind: Do you mean the WSM?!
- The WSM theory is a physical representation only. It does not belong to me, but is the closest I have found to correlate all thoughts into a 'physical medium'. For me, this gives greater strength to all the other previous theories and intuitions regarding the infinite aspect of the origins of existence. It simply makes psychological sense, as well as physical AND spiritual sense. Closer to a unified understanding than any other, at this time, and in my opinion, of course!
- Well, is it coincidence, or are we following the same trail? - Is it simply the 'logic trail'? Please consider, I haven't read your book yet!
Thanks for your time,
k.
QUOTE
1] Without reading the whole post, by conventional wisdom, this something may mean God?! But knowing your philosophy before hand: Do you mean it is Space?!
- This would be ALL spiritual/meditative intuitions; i.e. 'God', 'Tao', 'Brahman', etc, all of which have an infinite/eternal aspect, that could be interpreted as intuition of Infinite Space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1] Without reading the whole post, by conventional wisdom, this something may mean God?! But knowing your philosophy before hand: Do you mean it is Space?! |
- This would be ALL spiritual/meditative intuitions; i.e. 'God', 'Tao', 'Brahman', etc, all of which have an infinite/eternal aspect, that could be interpreted as intuition of Infinite Space.
2] Again, your intuition may mean imagination, creativity, etc. But in your mind: Do you mean the WSM?!
- The WSM theory is a physical representation only. It does not belong to me, but is the closest I have found to correlate all thoughts into a 'physical medium'. For me, this gives greater strength to all the other previous theories and intuitions regarding the infinite aspect of the origins of existence. It simply makes psychological sense, as well as physical AND spiritual sense. Closer to a unified understanding than any other, at this time, and in my opinion, of course!
QUOTE
I think this is exactly what I’ve had commented here, What existed before the Big Bang? (PhysOrgEU; October 3).
- Well, is it coincidence, or are we following the same trail? - Is it simply the 'logic trail'? Please consider, I haven't read your book yet!
Thanks for your time,
k.
Hello, Science-Religion Reconcilers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Knot of this World: You’re welcome!
What it means, is that we are, and have been, learning and thinking in the same wave forms of our Universe—one that you call Space, and one that would emanate infinite Consciousness and Intuitions through and by your researched WSM theory.
As such, and in fact, reading my book will help you connect the dots among your search of Consciousness, Intuitions, and the WSM—a theory of our Consciousness as related to the WSM, which I think could be traced and localized at our cortical neuronal membrane, as I've had explained recently here, Macro Wave-particle (PhysOrgEU; October 2); and quoted in entirety, for your convenience and consideration, as follows:
Ahhh… You forgot Jung’s Collective Unconscious theory of our Consciousness!
Mong,
That's exactly what I didn't forget!
Most of my ideas are based around it, as you know, I have created a thread at the WSM forum specifically with the link between Jung's ideas and WSM in mind.
It works. As you say, a wave-structure of mind is compatable with Jungian ideas (collective conscious/unconscious and 'synchronicity', specifically), also contemporary neurological science and WSM theory.
Any 'theory of everything' would have to be ultimately commensurate with ALL things, which is why a 'Dynamic Unity' makes more sense than any of the 'subjective' sciences. The WSM (site) openly admits to a 'problem' with the 'mind aspect', and hence does not make such a claim as this 'theory of everything', but surely cannot deny the possibility if it also proclaims such a 'Dynamic Unity'. In an attempt to uncover some of this 'problem', we have to look to where it is; i.e. The Mind.
'Space' does not have a 'problem', but we do, until we start to realise that we are simply a tiny part of it! 'Jungian' ideas are just one of many previous ways to overcome this 'problem' (in ourselves). For example, he was also interested in 'Taoism', as a transcendent 'medium'. (He wrote the forward to the contemporary version of the 'I Ching' - Richard Wilhelm translation), as I'm sure you must be aware...
Hi soundhertz,
- I have come to understand this as the ubiquitous 'Infinity'. However, this word has suffered much abuse and misunderstanding (haven't they all??!) but if it is the very thing that does describe our origins, we need to correctly describe and agree its properties, or face perpetual confusion, leading to disagreement and yet more conflict. Hence the 'infinity' thread.
The best a 'mathematician' seems to be able to come up with is 'read Georg Cantor!' (via 'wikipedia', no less!) 'Mathematical infinity' is not the real thing. It is used as an excuse for the unknown (exactly as it is in religions). If we convert this 'logic' back into its original spiritual meaning, it becomes 'an infinite number of gods inside an infinite number of gods!' (Clearly absurd, even by 'religious' standards!).
Infinity is the measurement that is not a measurement, because it is only ONE THING, and thus has no second 'point' of reference from which to measure from, or to! It necessarily needs to become a 'second', or 'finite' thing, in order to give it the ability to be measured. (At which point it stops being infinite, obviously!). Thus it is not logically possible to have more than ONE infinity!
With this in mind, the WSM theory states that (and please remember science's own self-measuring bar of 'Ockham's Razor', here), "One thing, Space, and its properties as a Wave Medium, exists". Coupled with Jung's ideas regarding the mind (the tool that dreams up all this 'science' in the first place!) it all starts to make quite a lot of sense, for me!
What you call 'metaphysical ideas', I would equate with our (collective) intuitive connections to what we know/feel about our origins. (Jung called this a 'transcendence of opposites' into the Unus Mundus - 'One World'.) By co-use of the 'collective unconscious' postulate, we can trace a (wave-structured) time-line, emerging from the fear-induced superstitious states of our ancestors, through our paranoid-religious recent histories, to the present-day 'new-age' of Reconciliation through necessity into a more 'spiritually and scientifically enlightened' future (if we intend surviving/evolving for much longer!) Or, the Truth of what is really 'out there'!
For more on a 'psychophysical' outlook, here's an interesting site (for alchemically minded metaphysicists only! - And 'real' scientists may like to note the connection with nobel-prize winner Wolfgang Pauli...)
http://www.psychovision.ch/synw/paujubw_e.htm
Enough for now, I think!
Best to all,
k.
Specifically, Knot of this World: You’re welcome!
QUOTE
- Well, is it coincidence, or are we following the same trail? - Is it simply the 'logic trail'? Please consider, I haven't read your book yet! Thanks for your time, k.
Ahhh… You forgot Jung’s Collective Unconscious theory of our Consciousness! Let me explain:What it means, is that we are, and have been, learning and thinking in the same wave forms of our Universe—one that you call Space, and one that would emanate infinite Consciousness and Intuitions through and by your researched WSM theory.
As such, and in fact, reading my book will help you connect the dots among your search of Consciousness, Intuitions, and the WSM—a theory of our Consciousness as related to the WSM, which I think could be traced and localized at our cortical neuronal membrane, as I've had explained recently here, Macro Wave-particle (PhysOrgEU; October 2); and quoted in entirety, for your convenience and consideration, as follows:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| - Well, is it coincidence, or are we following the same trail? - Is it simply the 'logic trail'? Please consider, I haven't read your book yet! Thanks for your time, k. |
Ahhh… You forgot Jung’s Collective Unconscious theory of our Consciousness! Let me explain:
What it means, is that we are, and have been, learning and thinking in the same wave forms of our Universe—one that you call Space, and one that would emanate infinite Consciousness and Intuitions through and by your researched WSM theory.
As such, and in fact, reading my book will help you connect the dots among your search of Consciousness, Intuitions, and the WSM—a theory of our Consciousness as related to the WSM, which I think could be traced and localized at our cortical neuronal membrane, as I've had explained recently here, Macro Wave-particle (PhysOrgEU; October 2); and quoted in entirety, for your convenience and consideration, as follows:
Hello, Scientists, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Hdeasy and Zephir: What insightful arguments! In fact, you both are all entangled in the “right and wrong” predicament or duality of our human Mind or Consciousness at the most quantum level!
Similarly—rightly or wrongly—my research has had guided me to the cortical neuronal membrane, as a magical place of Consciousness as directed by the particle-wave functions of membrane “memophors,” the imagery membrane components that may be likened to the particle-wave functions of phosphors being coated on a TV tube.
For simplicity, and neuro-electrochemically—if you would make a quick review of the Frontispiece of Gods, Genes, Conscience listed below—the main medium that projects imageries in and of our Mind, as a reflection of Consciousness into our brain, is Light (the optical quanta of photons, as shown in the Square inset) through and by our visual circuitry, as follows:
Perceptivity through and by the retina —> imagery-memory modulation —> particle-wave functions of imagery-memory on the cortical neuronal membrane (please see the Circular inset) —> “memophorescence”—like phosphorescence of TV phosphors —> “memophorescenicity” —> infinite creativity or fluidity of imagery-memory, intuitions, etc,
thereby making us, the scientist-Observer-philosopher as well as the “memory manipulator” or “thinker” of this stream of visual Consciousness, being modulated on the cortical membrane, as exemplified by a projection or imagination of the Creation of Adam, in a modern wannabe Michelangelo’s spherical mind!
Thus, by this new model of our Mind or memophorescenicity, our Consciousness, or intelligence, or even dreams, thoughts, emotions, intuitions, etc, are in fact the neuronal electrochemical functions of our brain within, cumulatively known as the “infinite” Mind, memory, psyche, etc, of the scientist-Observer-thinker, in each of ourselves.
Furthermore, the infinite universal theory of Mind notwithstanding, the quantum mechanics of memophorescenicity, would be and must also be applicable to all of our other sensory circuitries as well, including those of our smelling, tasting, touching, and hearing; all neuro-electrochemically, forming all the senses and experiences of our body and infinite Mind, etc, within—please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind.
More specifically, and infinitively, and quantum mechanically, our Mind would work like a pinhole camera, that would receive—or perceive in our case; as shown in the Frontispiece, as explained above—and project images—or cortical memophorescenicity—ad infinitum, at the back of the camera—or in our infinite spherical Mind, as explained above—thus giving us our unlimited multidimensional ability and capacity to view, sense, analyze, dream, speculate, comprehend, and appreciate the beauty of Quantum Mechanics in the Evolution of Life and Mind, and the Universe above and beyond, as a TOE or Consciousness as Infinity (∞)!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/2/6usct1:14p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/5/6usct9:52a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
What it means, is that we are, and have been, learning and thinking in the same wave forms of our Universe—one that you call Space, and one that would emanate infinite Consciousness and Intuitions through and by your researched WSM theory.
As such, and in fact, reading my book will help you connect the dots among your search of Consciousness, Intuitions, and the WSM—a theory of our Consciousness as related to the WSM, which I think could be traced and localized at our cortical neuronal membrane, as I've had explained recently here, Macro Wave-particle (PhysOrgEU; October 2); and quoted in entirety, for your convenience and consideration, as follows:
Hello, Scientists, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Hdeasy and Zephir: What insightful arguments! In fact, you both are all entangled in the “right and wrong” predicament or duality of our human Mind or Consciousness at the most quantum level!
Similarly—rightly or wrongly—my research has had guided me to the cortical neuronal membrane, as a magical place of Consciousness as directed by the particle-wave functions of membrane “memophors,” the imagery membrane components that may be likened to the particle-wave functions of phosphors being coated on a TV tube.
For simplicity, and neuro-electrochemically—if you would make a quick review of the Frontispiece of Gods, Genes, Conscience listed below—the main medium that projects imageries in and of our Mind, as a reflection of Consciousness into our brain, is Light (the optical quanta of photons, as shown in the Square inset) through and by our visual circuitry, as follows:
Perceptivity through and by the retina —> imagery-memory modulation —> particle-wave functions of imagery-memory on the cortical neuronal membrane (please see the Circular inset) —> “memophorescence”—like phosphorescence of TV phosphors —> “memophorescenicity” —> infinite creativity or fluidity of imagery-memory, intuitions, etc,
thereby making us, the scientist-Observer-philosopher as well as the “memory manipulator” or “thinker” of this stream of visual Consciousness, being modulated on the cortical membrane, as exemplified by a projection or imagination of the Creation of Adam, in a modern wannabe Michelangelo’s spherical mind!
Thus, by this new model of our Mind or memophorescenicity, our Consciousness, or intelligence, or even dreams, thoughts, emotions, intuitions, etc, are in fact the neuronal electrochemical functions of our brain within, cumulatively known as the “infinite” Mind, memory, psyche, etc, of the scientist-Observer-thinker, in each of ourselves.
Furthermore, the infinite universal theory of Mind notwithstanding, the quantum mechanics of memophorescenicity, would be and must also be applicable to all of our other sensory circuitries as well, including those of our smelling, tasting, touching, and hearing; all neuro-electrochemically, forming all the senses and experiences of our body and infinite Mind, etc, within—please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind.
More specifically, and infinitively, and quantum mechanically, our Mind would work like a pinhole camera, that would receive—or perceive in our case; as shown in the Frontispiece, as explained above—and project images—or cortical memophorescenicity—ad infinitum, at the back of the camera—or in our infinite spherical Mind, as explained above—thus giving us our unlimited multidimensional ability and capacity to view, sense, analyze, dream, speculate, comprehend, and appreciate the beauty of Quantum Mechanics in the Evolution of Life and Mind, and the Universe above and beyond, as a TOE or Consciousness as Infinity (∞)!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/2/6usct1:14p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/5/6usct9:52a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hi Mong,
Have you read Frank Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality"? Although recent evidence suggests the Universe is not closed, do you think there is something to this book? I am most interested in implementing - I hate to use this term - metaphysical ideas into daily life to actualize all these theories. It makes great sense to me that in dealing with ideas of the mind rather than the body, that time, especially excessive time, is not necessarily required to see some evidence that these ideas are true and relevant. We have lots of ideas and theories because we have evolved into imaginative beings. But there is nothing like results. There is nothing like 'certainty'. I bow to certainty, the small amount we have. Everything we are, have, believe, hope for, is all speculation. Even what many think is real. All that is really real is that we and where we are is HERE. Beyond that, it's all speculation, regardless of math and data, which themselves are just our closed interpretations of whatever the reality is. That's why the math breaks down if you go either big enough or small enough. I think our mathematical processes themselves are a rung on the ladder to certainty, not the framework of certainty itself. Newtonian physics breaks down, Einsteinian physics breaks down. Whatever new maths we discover will find their breakdown point, as long as the big and the small don't have endpoints. The ether this universe is in may be very small; the smaller-than-Planck world may be very big. We don't know the difference; do we really know anything then but our observations through glasses we don't know how to take off? I think what we are trying to really accomplish on this thread is how to take the glasses off. I think it shouldn't necessarily require excessive time to do it. Maybe just excessive practice. You know what they say about practice...
Have you read Frank Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality"? Although recent evidence suggests the Universe is not closed, do you think there is something to this book? I am most interested in implementing - I hate to use this term - metaphysical ideas into daily life to actualize all these theories. It makes great sense to me that in dealing with ideas of the mind rather than the body, that time, especially excessive time, is not necessarily required to see some evidence that these ideas are true and relevant. We have lots of ideas and theories because we have evolved into imaginative beings. But there is nothing like results. There is nothing like 'certainty'. I bow to certainty, the small amount we have. Everything we are, have, believe, hope for, is all speculation. Even what many think is real. All that is really real is that we and where we are is HERE. Beyond that, it's all speculation, regardless of math and data, which themselves are just our closed interpretations of whatever the reality is. That's why the math breaks down if you go either big enough or small enough. I think our mathematical processes themselves are a rung on the ladder to certainty, not the framework of certainty itself. Newtonian physics breaks down, Einsteinian physics breaks down. Whatever new maths we discover will find their breakdown point, as long as the big and the small don't have endpoints. The ether this universe is in may be very small; the smaller-than-Planck world may be very big. We don't know the difference; do we really know anything then but our observations through glasses we don't know how to take off? I think what we are trying to really accomplish on this thread is how to take the glasses off. I think it shouldn't necessarily require excessive time to do it. Maybe just excessive practice. You know what they say about practice...
QUOTE (Mong H Tan+ PhD,Oct 5 2006, 02:53 PM)
Ahhh… You forgot Jung’s Collective Unconscious theory of our Consciousness!
Mong,
That's exactly what I didn't forget!
Most of my ideas are based around it, as you know, I have created a thread at the WSM forum specifically with the link between Jung's ideas and WSM in mind.
It works. As you say, a wave-structure of mind is compatable with Jungian ideas (collective conscious/unconscious and 'synchronicity', specifically), also contemporary neurological science and WSM theory.
Any 'theory of everything' would have to be ultimately commensurate with ALL things, which is why a 'Dynamic Unity' makes more sense than any of the 'subjective' sciences. The WSM (site) openly admits to a 'problem' with the 'mind aspect', and hence does not make such a claim as this 'theory of everything', but surely cannot deny the possibility if it also proclaims such a 'Dynamic Unity'. In an attempt to uncover some of this 'problem', we have to look to where it is; i.e. The Mind.
'Space' does not have a 'problem', but we do, until we start to realise that we are simply a tiny part of it! 'Jungian' ideas are just one of many previous ways to overcome this 'problem' (in ourselves). For example, he was also interested in 'Taoism', as a transcendent 'medium'. (He wrote the forward to the contemporary version of the 'I Ching' - Richard Wilhelm translation), as I'm sure you must be aware...
Hi soundhertz,
QUOTE
Whatever new maths we discover will find their breakdown point, as long as the big and the small don't have endpoints.
- I have come to understand this as the ubiquitous 'Infinity'. However, this word has suffered much abuse and misunderstanding (haven't they all??!) but if it is the very thing that does describe our origins, we need to correctly describe and agree its properties, or face perpetual confusion, leading to disagreement and yet more conflict. Hence the 'infinity' thread.
The best a 'mathematician' seems to be able to come up with is 'read Georg Cantor!' (via 'wikipedia', no less!) 'Mathematical infinity' is not the real thing. It is used as an excuse for the unknown (exactly as it is in religions). If we convert this 'logic' back into its original spiritual meaning, it becomes 'an infinite number of gods inside an infinite number of gods!' (Clearly absurd, even by 'religious' standards!).
Infinity is the measurement that is not a measurement, because it is only ONE THING, and thus has no second 'point' of reference from which to measure from, or to! It necessarily needs to become a 'second', or 'finite' thing, in order to give it the ability to be measured. (At which point it stops being infinite, obviously!). Thus it is not logically possible to have more than ONE infinity!
With this in mind, the WSM theory states that (and please remember science's own self-measuring bar of 'Ockham's Razor', here), "One thing, Space, and its properties as a Wave Medium, exists". Coupled with Jung's ideas regarding the mind (the tool that dreams up all this 'science' in the first place!) it all starts to make quite a lot of sense, for me!
What you call 'metaphysical ideas', I would equate with our (collective) intuitive connections to what we know/feel about our origins. (Jung called this a 'transcendence of opposites' into the Unus Mundus - 'One World'.) By co-use of the 'collective unconscious' postulate, we can trace a (wave-structured) time-line, emerging from the fear-induced superstitious states of our ancestors, through our paranoid-religious recent histories, to the present-day 'new-age' of Reconciliation through necessity into a more 'spiritually and scientifically enlightened' future (if we intend surviving/evolving for much longer!) Or, the Truth of what is really 'out there'!
For more on a 'psychophysical' outlook, here's an interesting site (for alchemically minded metaphysicists only!
- And 'real' scientists may like to note the connection with nobel-prize winner Wolfgang Pauli...)http://www.psychovision.ch/synw/paujubw_e.htm
Enough for now, I think!
Best to all,
k.
Hello, Science-Religion Reconcilers, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Knot of this world: Well said below; and your conclusion was outstanding!
2] Empirically, that would be the particle-wave functions of the neuronal membrane, or Memophorescenicity, a new theory and mechanisms of our Mind (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).
3] The “Dynamic Unity” might be too broad and vague as a term to define our Mind in the 21st century; whereas the more specific mechanisms of Memophorescenicity should provide a focus for interested scientists, philosophers, to resolve the inadequacy of the Jungian theories of Collective Unconscious and Synchronicity; and of our Consciousness and Memory Modulation, as a model, as a whole, in our brain within.
4] Analytically, that “problem” would be the Perceptivity-Intuitivity-Memory-Creativity of our dynamic Mind within; a new theory that I’ve had also pursued from an empiricist electrochemical particle-wave or Yin-Yang properties of Holism-Cosmology—or Daoism to which you refer as Space, Infinity, etc!
As for Soundhertz: I think you have presented a profound theory (albeit more speculative) of Life and Mind issues that borders the membrane-thin line between Reality and Metaphysics; Facts and Fictions; or by modern definitions, a proposition that straddles between Science and Religion—specifically reincarnation of afterlife (and/or intelligence) in Hinduism—respectively; also as explained in 2] above. Nonetheless, let’s see if I could help elaborate your thoughts point by point further, as follows:
The notion of reconciliation is that there will be a sharing, a comon ground.
The notion of reconciliation is that there will be a sharing, a comon ground.
Reconciliation
the reestablishment of friendly relations; conciliation or rapprochement
A Roman Catholic sacrament involving contrition, confession, punishment and absolution; penance
The notion of reconciliation is that there will be a sharing, a comon ground.
Wiktionary
My qestion is; why should there be a common ground between believers in a superstition and those based in reality?
Hello Physfan,
It's quite simple, really, for me. If people remain divided, they will continue in the same way they have done; i.e. we will continue to witness more war, pollution, unfairness, etc in the world, and this cannot continue indefinitely, without dire consequences.
This division starts within the individual. An 'anti-religious' stance is no different to that of an 'anti-science' one (two ends of the same pole), and as individuals we convince ourselves to 'make a choice' between the two as a direct result of living in a dualistically perceived environment. In scientific terms, we can describe these 'anti' stances as 'fission', but in Nature we find a balance of 'fission' AND 'fusion' (cause and effect). Thus, complete 'fission' is contrary to the laws of Nature, which may be why we are unconsciously creating so many problems! (Please see the rest of the thread, as I'm sure you'll find it interesting, given your 'scientific' stance.)
Of course, if you have something personal against 'religion' per se, or have had a bad experience of such, you may find you have a very UNscientific bias, based upon your personal and subjective emotional state. Our unconscious 'spirituality' is not escapable, i'm afraid!
Alternatively, another analogy of the same is presented on this thread...(Keep a watch out for the 'mirrors' analogy from Jinxed. Very relevant.)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8987&st=0
...with more science!
Have fun!
k.
This is where we are poles apart. I am not specifically anti-religion; I am anti-superstition of which religion is a major part. To say we need to bridge the gap tacitly gives credibility to any purveyor of spooks, ghosts, otherworld and whatever other other claptrap non-realists believe in. Faith is another way of saying I don't know amd am not prepared to know - in any other sphere, we would label these people stupid but cloak it in religion and it becomes respectable.
Physfan
This is where we are poles apart. I am not specifically anti-religion; I am anti-superstition of which religion is a major part. To say we need to bridge the gap tacitly gives credibility to any purveyor of spooks, ghosts, otherworld and whatever other other claptrap non-realists believe in. Faith is another way of saying I don't know amd am not prepared to know - in any other sphere, we would label these people stupid but cloak it in religion and it becomes respectable.
Physfan
Hi,
In that case, it is probably wisest for you to start (yet another) 'anti-superstition' thread, unless of course you post on this one purely for the purpose of keeping people divided with your personal bias?
Superstition is a fear of the unknown, and seeing as you seem to know very little about it, it would appear that you too are superstitious about 'religion'! So, let me ask you, are you prepared to know any more about religion?
k.
Superstition is cloaking the unknown with the supernatural. I know what can be known today. If it isn't known now, then it may be in the future. This is sound, reasonable and sensible; not irrational superstition.
Superstition is cloaking the unknown with the supernatural. I know what can be known today. If it isn't known now, then it may be in the future. This is sound, reasonable and sensible; not irrational superstition.
, and seeing as you seem to know very little about it, it would appear that you too are superstitious about 'religion'
I know enough about three brands having done some reading of their books. None make sense but, then again, they won't because of the basic premise.
Why would I want to know more about the unknowable? I am a rationalist; I won't beat about the bush - there is no god, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever other brand of fairy you can think up. None of these exist.
Consider for a minute; if one exists, can the others? If one can't, no others can either. None do.
Physfan
To 'reconcile' with that irks me.
- Which is why I too am skeptical. Please read the above post. You are describing POLITICS, and 'religion' is just the prefered tool...
At least half of the worlds population claims affinity with some 'religion' or other - What would you do, or say, to these people?
Something of relevance I found today...
- Which is why I too am skeptical. Please read the above post. You are describing POLITICS, and 'religion' is just the prefered tool...
At least half of the worlds population claims affinity with some 'religion' or other - What would you do, or say, to these people?
Something of relevance I found today...
"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, create incidents, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." (Hermann Goering)
The trouble is that an 'anti-religious' stance perpetuates the conflict and violence, which is exactly how people are controlled. It is our own violence, our own inner conflict that controllers will 'help us' use against others, and people will not see it, as they believe themselves to be already in control.
Knot of this world: Well said below; and your conclusion was outstanding!
QUOTE
Mong: That's exactly what I didn't forget[1]!
Most of my ideas are based around it, as you know, I have created a thread at the WSM forum specifically with the link between Jung's ideas and WSM in mind.
It works. As you say, a wave-structure of mind is compatible with Jungian ideas (collective conscious/unconscious and 'synchronicity', specifically), also contemporary neurological science and WSM theory[2].
Any 'theory of everything' would have to be ultimately commensurate with ALL things, which is why a 'Dynamic Unity' makes more sense than any of the 'subjective' sciences. The WSM (site) openly admits to a 'problem' with the 'mind aspect', and hence does not make such a claim as this 'theory of everything', but surely cannot deny the possibility if it also proclaims such a 'Dynamic Unity'. In an attempt to uncover some of this 'problem', we have to look to where it is; i.e. The Mind[3].
'Space' does not have a 'problem', but we do, until we start to realize that we are simply a tiny part of it! 'Jungian' ideas are just one of many previous ways to overcome this 'problem' (in ourselves)[4]. For example, he was also interested in 'Taoism', as a transcendent 'medium'. (He wrote the forward to the contemporary version of the 'I Ching' - Richard Wilhelm translation), as I'm sure you must be aware...
1] I knew that—that’s the Ahhh… for: as a reminder; not a diagnosis of dementia! That's exactly what I didn't forget[1]!Most of my ideas are based around it, as you know, I have created a thread at the WSM forum specifically with the link between Jung's ideas and WSM in mind.
It works. As you say, a wave-structure of mind is compatible with Jungian ideas (collective conscious/unconscious and 'synchronicity', specifically), also contemporary neurological science and WSM theory[2].
Any 'theory of everything' would have to be ultimately commensurate with ALL things, which is why a 'Dynamic Unity' makes more sense than any of the 'subjective' sciences. The WSM (site) openly admits to a 'problem' with the 'mind aspect', and hence does not make such a claim as this 'theory of everything', but surely cannot deny the possibility if it also proclaims such a 'Dynamic Unity'. In an attempt to uncover some of this 'problem', we have to look to where it is; i.e. The Mind[3].
'Space' does not have a 'problem', but we do, until we start to realize that we are simply a tiny part of it! 'Jungian' ideas are just one of many previous ways to overcome this 'problem' (in ourselves)[4]. For example, he was also interested in 'Taoism', as a transcendent 'medium'. (He wrote the forward to the contemporary version of the 'I Ching' - Richard Wilhelm translation), as I'm sure you must be aware...
2] Empirically, that would be the particle-wave functions of the neuronal membrane, or Memophorescenicity, a new theory and mechanisms of our Mind (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).
3] The “Dynamic Unity” might be too broad and vague as a term to define our Mind in the 21st century; whereas the more specific mechanisms of Memophorescenicity should provide a focus for interested scientists, philosophers, to resolve the inadequacy of the Jungian theories of Collective Unconscious and Synchronicity; and of our Consciousness and Memory Modulation, as a model, as a whole, in our brain within.
4] Analytically, that “problem” would be the Perceptivity-Intuitivity-Memory-Creativity of our dynamic Mind within; a new theory that I’ve had also pursued from an empiricist electrochemical particle-wave or Yin-Yang properties of Holism-Cosmology—or Daoism to which you refer as Space, Infinity, etc!
As for Soundhertz: I think you have presented a profound theory (albeit more speculative) of Life and Mind issues that borders the membrane-thin line between Reality and Metaphysics; Facts and Fictions; or by modern definitions, a proposition that straddles between Science and Religion—specifically reincarnation of afterlife (and/or intelligence) in Hinduism—respectively; also as explained in 2] above. Nonetheless, let’s see if I could help elaborate your thoughts point by point further, as follows:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mong: That's exactly what I didn't forget[1]! Most of my ideas are based around it, as you know, I have created a thread at the WSM forum specifically with the link between Jung's ideas and WSM in mind. It works. As you say, a wave-structure of mind is compatible with Jungian ideas (collective conscious/unconscious and 'synchronicity', specifically), also contemporary neurological science and WSM theory[2]. Any 'theory of everything' would have to be ultimately commensurate with ALL things, which is why a 'Dynamic Unity' makes more sense than any of the 'subjective' sciences. The WSM (site) openly admits to a 'problem' with the 'mind aspect', and hence does not make such a claim as this 'theory of everything', but surely cannot deny the possibility if it also proclaims such a 'Dynamic Unity'. In an attempt to uncover some of this 'problem', we have to look to where it is; i.e. The Mind[3]. 'Space' does not have a 'problem', but we do, until we start to realize that we are simply a tiny part of it! 'Jungian' ideas are just one of many previous ways to overcome this 'problem' (in ourselves)[4]. For example, he was also interested in 'Taoism', as a transcendent 'medium'. (He wrote the forward to the contemporary version of the 'I Ching' - Richard Wilhelm translation), as I'm sure you must be aware... |
1] I knew that—that’s the Ahhh… for: as a reminder; not a diagnosis of dementia!
2] Empirically, that would be the particle-wave functions of the neuronal membrane, or Memophorescenicity, a new theory and mechanisms of our Mind (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).
3] The “Dynamic Unity” might be too broad and vague as a term to define our Mind in the 21st century; whereas the more specific mechanisms of Memophorescenicity should provide a focus for interested scientists, philosophers, to resolve the inadequacy of the Jungian theories of Collective Unconscious and Synchronicity; and of our Consciousness and Memory Modulation, as a model, as a whole, in our brain within.
4] Analytically, that “problem” would be the Perceptivity-Intuitivity-Memory-Creativity of our dynamic Mind within; a new theory that I’ve had also pursued from an empiricist electrochemical particle-wave or Yin-Yang properties of Holism-Cosmology—or Daoism to which you refer as Space, Infinity, etc!
As for Soundhertz: I think you have presented a profound theory (albeit more speculative) of Life and Mind issues that borders the membrane-thin line between Reality and Metaphysics; Facts and Fictions; or by modern definitions, a proposition that straddles between Science and Religion—specifically reincarnation of afterlife (and/or intelligence) in Hinduism—respectively; also as explained in 2] above. Nonetheless, let’s see if I could help elaborate your thoughts point by point further, as follows:
Hi Mong: Have you read Frank Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality"? Although recent evidence suggests the Universe is not closed, do you think there is something to this book? I am most interested in implementing - I hate to use this term - metaphysical ideas into daily life to actualize all these theories[5].
It makes great sense to me that in dealing with ideas of the mind rather than the body, that time, especially excessive time, is not necessarily required to see some evidence that these ideas are true and relevant[6].
We have lots of ideas and theories because we have evolved into imaginative beings. But there is nothing like results[7].
There is nothing like 'certainty'. I bow to certainty, the small amount we have. Everything we are, have, believe, hope for, is all speculation. Even what many think is real; all that is really real is that we and where we are is HERE. Beyond that, it's all speculation, regardless of math and data, which themselves are just our closed interpretations of whatever the reality is[8].
That's why the math breaks down if you go either big enough or small enough. I think our mathematical processes themselves are a rung on the ladder to certainty, not the framework of certainty itself[9].
Newtonian physics breaks down, Einsteinian physics breaks down. Whatever new maths we discover will find their breakdown point, as long as the big and the small don't have endpoints[10].
The ether this universe is in may be very small; the smaller-than-Planck world may be very big. We don't know the difference; do we really know anything then but our observations through glasses we don't know how to take off[11]?
I think what we are trying to really accomplish on this thread is how to take the glasses off. I think it shouldn't necessarily require excessive time to do it. Maybe just excessive practice. You know what they say about practice[12]...
2] Empirically, that would be the particle-wave functions of the neuronal membrane, or Memophorescenicity, a new theory and mechanisms of our Mind (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).
3] The “Dynamic Unity” might be too broad and vague as a term to define our Mind in the 21st century; whereas the more specific mechanisms of Memophorescenicity should provide a focus for interested scientists, philosophers, to resolve the inadequacy of the Jungian theories of Collective Unconscious and Synchronicity; and of our Consciousness and Memory Modulation, as a model, as a whole, in our brain within.
4] Analytically, that “problem” would be the Perceptivity-Intuitivity-Memory-Creativity of our dynamic Mind within; a new theory that I’ve had also pursued from an empiricist electrochemical particle-wave or Yin-Yang properties of Holism-Cosmology—or Daoism to which you refer as Space, Infinity, etc!
As for Soundhertz: I think you have presented a profound theory (albeit more speculative) of Life and Mind issues that borders the membrane-thin line between Reality and Metaphysics; Facts and Fictions; or by modern definitions, a proposition that straddles between Science and Religion—specifically reincarnation of afterlife (and/or intelligence) in Hinduism—respectively; also as explained in 2] above. Nonetheless, let’s see if I could help elaborate your thoughts point by point further, as follows:
Hi Mong: Have you read Frank Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality"? Although recent evidence suggests the Universe is not closed, do you think there is something to this book? I am most interested in implementing - I hate to use this term - metaphysical ideas into daily life to actualize all these theories[5].
It makes great sense to me that in dealing with ideas of the mind rather than the body, that time, especially excessive time, is not necessarily required to see some evidence that these ideas are true and relevant[6].
We have lots of ideas and theories because we have evolved into imaginative beings. But there is nothing like results[7].
There is nothing like 'certainty'. I bow to certainty, the small amount we have. Everything we are, have, believe, hope for, is all speculation. Even what many think is real; all that is really real is that we and where we are is HERE. Beyond that, it's all speculation, regardless of math and data, which themselves are just our closed interpretations of whatever the reality is[8].
That's why the math breaks down if you go either big enough or small enough. I think our mathematical processes themselves are a rung on the ladder to certainty, not the framework of certainty itself[9].
Newtonian physics breaks down, Einsteinian physics breaks down. Whatever new maths we discover will find their breakdown point, as long as the big and the small don't have endpoints[10].
The ether this universe is in may be very small; the smaller-than-Planck world may be very big. We don't know the difference; do we really know anything then but our observations through glasses we don't know how to take off[11]?
I think what we are trying to really accomplish on this thread is how to take the glasses off. I think it shouldn't necessarily require excessive time to do it. Maybe just excessive practice. You know what they say about practice[12]...
5] Wow, these are very unrealistic ideas that the book The Physics of Immortality (1995) has had only been referring to the abiotic existence of elements, or the inorganic STEM matrices or entities of space, time, energy, and matter in the Universe above and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).
The author Frank Tipler—a mathematical physicist by training and practice—obviously has had a blind sight on the complexity of any biotic entities including our human beings on Earth. That the Universe might be an open (infinite) system would not mean that our lifespan per se (currently estimated to be 100 ± 20 Earth years) might be indefinite; or our intelligence could be extended into perpetuity, in the Cosmo above and beyond!
With our Life and Mind limitations like this (more to be explained below), I wonder how you would be able to implement those metaphysical ideas and theories of immortality or pure imaginations of our Mind within, into our realistic, biotic system of daily Life?!
6] This is a self-deceptive, self-denial metaphysical statement; it is because our Mind-Memory-Consciousness-Self synthesis, would not be able to exist without the biotic support of our body-system of senses; and only through and by our learning and practice and sensory experiences, would our Mind be able to guide and sustain the survivorship of our body for health and prosperity. As such, we would not be able to survive anywhere or anytime in any event, if our Mind and body were to be separated; and vice versa, on this unique planet Earth.
7] This is true; the powers of our imagination shall guide and sustain our existence and survivorship, meaningful or otherwise, as a result; in our evermore dynamic world on Earth, also as explained in 6] above.
8] This is a nihilistic or pessimistic metaphysical statement; it is because there would be no “certainty” in our evermore dynamic world today, such as HERE and NOW; everything is in perpetual motion and change, within the dynamic context of the STEM matrix; as explained in 5] above, and also please see Gods, Genes, Conscience.
9] This is a misinterpretation of the powers of Mathematics; as Math is only a tool of our inventiveness in logics and speculations. The Big and Small of the Universe of the STEM matrices are beyond our imaginations and observations or what we would be able to see and sense today, on and from Earth. That’s why Math would break down someday, if it doesn’t meet the measure of reality then—or certainty as you put it!
10] Contrary to the conventional wisdom: neither Newtonian nor Einsteinian Physics has had broken down, or been enacting to break each other down so far; this is because they each have had been attempting to measure the different layers of the complex reality of our Universe or the STEM matrix above and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience). As such, the very Big and the very Small would never meet as Unity, as once Einstein had had hoped and imagined, in and with his conventional wisdom; also as explained in 9] above.
11] In Cosmology today, nothing has been settled yet, particularly the Big Bang theory; even the results of the COBE project should remain a suspect as I’ve had commented here, What existed before the Big Bang? (PhysOrgEU; October 3).
12] This is true; in fact, personally, I’ve been learning and practicing a lot with this thread as well as otherwise elsewhere since April; it really helps me read, analyze, and write evermore critically and effectively in each post I would make nowadays. Thanks for your deep thoughts, in both Science and Metaphysics above, Soundhertz!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/10/6usct2:17p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
The author Frank Tipler—a mathematical physicist by training and practice—obviously has had a blind sight on the complexity of any biotic entities including our human beings on Earth. That the Universe might be an open (infinite) system would not mean that our lifespan per se (currently estimated to be 100 ± 20 Earth years) might be indefinite; or our intelligence could be extended into perpetuity, in the Cosmo above and beyond!
With our Life and Mind limitations like this (more to be explained below), I wonder how you would be able to implement those metaphysical ideas and theories of immortality or pure imaginations of our Mind within, into our realistic, biotic system of daily Life?!
6] This is a self-deceptive, self-denial metaphysical statement; it is because our Mind-Memory-Consciousness-Self synthesis, would not be able to exist without the biotic support of our body-system of senses; and only through and by our learning and practice and sensory experiences, would our Mind be able to guide and sustain the survivorship of our body for health and prosperity. As such, we would not be able to survive anywhere or anytime in any event, if our Mind and body were to be separated; and vice versa, on this unique planet Earth.
7] This is true; the powers of our imagination shall guide and sustain our existence and survivorship, meaningful or otherwise, as a result; in our evermore dynamic world on Earth, also as explained in 6] above.
8] This is a nihilistic or pessimistic metaphysical statement; it is because there would be no “certainty” in our evermore dynamic world today, such as HERE and NOW; everything is in perpetual motion and change, within the dynamic context of the STEM matrix; as explained in 5] above, and also please see Gods, Genes, Conscience.
9] This is a misinterpretation of the powers of Mathematics; as Math is only a tool of our inventiveness in logics and speculations. The Big and Small of the Universe of the STEM matrices are beyond our imaginations and observations or what we would be able to see and sense today, on and from Earth. That’s why Math would break down someday, if it doesn’t meet the measure of reality then—or certainty as you put it!
10] Contrary to the conventional wisdom: neither Newtonian nor Einsteinian Physics has had broken down, or been enacting to break each other down so far; this is because they each have had been attempting to measure the different layers of the complex reality of our Universe or the STEM matrix above and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience). As such, the very Big and the very Small would never meet as Unity, as once Einstein had had hoped and imagined, in and with his conventional wisdom; also as explained in 9] above.
11] In Cosmology today, nothing has been settled yet, particularly the Big Bang theory; even the results of the COBE project should remain a suspect as I’ve had commented here, What existed before the Big Bang? (PhysOrgEU; October 3).
12] This is true; in fact, personally, I’ve been learning and practicing a lot with this thread as well as otherwise elsewhere since April; it really helps me read, analyze, and write evermore critically and effectively in each post I would make nowadays. Thanks for your deep thoughts, in both Science and Metaphysics above, Soundhertz!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/10/6usct2:17p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hei Mong,
The 'Dynamic Unity' refered to is the One that describes Space as the One Thing that exists (with Infinite perspective), which of course must mean that it includes 'mind', as a part of its entirety. Thus, in this context, 'mind' is certainly 'vague', and undoubtedly 'broad', as you have yourself pointed out that...
"Consciousness is an ambiguous subject even today that none a well trained scientist or philosopher could have had gotten it right completely, satisfactorily. Indeed, it is too hot and vague a subject to debate; it is also too hard a phenomenon to define and to be understood, in and by any conventional ways, other than awaiting more advances in interdisciplinary science and metacognition of the subject."
from here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8234
Having a recent conversation with soundhertz on another thread, I discovered his liking of the 'Gaian Hypothesis'; Something which I also have much affection for. Are you at all familiar with it, Mong, or the work of James Lovelock?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science)
It may also explain some of soundhertz's statements, which, if I may be so bold as to state, that you may have dismissed rather hyper-critically. Not everything has some 'problem' attached to it, I feel.
Surely, if we are serious about 'reconciliation', we can afford to 'give' a little, either way? The Gaian Hypothesis is most reconciliatory in its proposals.
Pre-emptive apologies to you both, if I have misrepresented any understanding with the above...
...and, as ever, best wishes!
k.
The 'Dynamic Unity' refered to is the One that describes Space as the One Thing that exists (with Infinite perspective), which of course must mean that it includes 'mind', as a part of its entirety. Thus, in this context, 'mind' is certainly 'vague', and undoubtedly 'broad', as you have yourself pointed out that...
"Consciousness is an ambiguous subject even today that none a well trained scientist or philosopher could have had gotten it right completely, satisfactorily. Indeed, it is too hot and vague a subject to debate; it is also too hard a phenomenon to define and to be understood, in and by any conventional ways, other than awaiting more advances in interdisciplinary science and metacognition of the subject."
from here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8234
Having a recent conversation with soundhertz on another thread, I discovered his liking of the 'Gaian Hypothesis'; Something which I also have much affection for. Are you at all familiar with it, Mong, or the work of James Lovelock?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science)
It may also explain some of soundhertz's statements, which, if I may be so bold as to state, that you may have dismissed rather hyper-critically. Not everything has some 'problem' attached to it, I feel.
Surely, if we are serious about 'reconciliation', we can afford to 'give' a little, either way? The Gaian Hypothesis is most reconciliatory in its proposals.
Pre-emptive apologies to you both, if I have misrepresented any understanding with the above...
...and, as ever, best wishes!
k.
QUOTE
Hello, Science-Religion Reconcilers
The notion of reconciliation is that there will be a sharing, a comon ground.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hello, Science-Religion Reconcilers |
The notion of reconciliation is that there will be a sharing, a comon ground.
Reconciliation
the reestablishment of friendly relations; conciliation or rapprochement
A Roman Catholic sacrament involving contrition, confession, punishment and absolution; penance
Wiktionary
My qestion is; why should there be a common ground between believers in a superstition and those based in reality? Religion is still the cause of most of the world's woes. It needs to be removed from human thinking.
The platitudes of reconciliation are baseless in their message and useless in their intent.
Physfan
My qestion is; why should there be a common ground between believers in a superstition and those based in reality? Religion is still the cause of most of the world's woes. It needs to be removed from human thinking.
The platitudes of reconciliation are baseless in their message and useless in their intent.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 11 2006, 02:52 AM)
The notion of reconciliation is that there will be a sharing, a comon ground.
Wiktionary
My qestion is; why should there be a common ground between believers in a superstition and those based in reality?
Hello Physfan,
It's quite simple, really, for me. If people remain divided, they will continue in the same way they have done; i.e. we will continue to witness more war, pollution, unfairness, etc in the world, and this cannot continue indefinitely, without dire consequences.
This division starts within the individual. An 'anti-religious' stance is no different to that of an 'anti-science' one (two ends of the same pole), and as individuals we convince ourselves to 'make a choice' between the two as a direct result of living in a dualistically perceived environment. In scientific terms, we can describe these 'anti' stances as 'fission', but in Nature we find a balance of 'fission' AND 'fusion' (cause and effect). Thus, complete 'fission' is contrary to the laws of Nature, which may be why we are unconsciously creating so many problems! (Please see the rest of the thread, as I'm sure you'll find it interesting, given your 'scientific' stance.)
Of course, if you have something personal against 'religion' per se, or have had a bad experience of such, you may find you have a very UNscientific bias, based upon your personal and subjective emotional state. Our unconscious 'spirituality' is not escapable, i'm afraid!
Alternatively, another analogy of the same is presented on this thread...(Keep a watch out for the 'mirrors' analogy from Jinxed. Very relevant.)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8987&st=0
...with more science!
Have fun!
k.
QUOTE
An 'anti-religious' stance is no different to that of an 'anti-science' one (two ends of the same pole)
This is where we are poles apart. I am not specifically anti-religion; I am anti-superstition of which religion is a major part. To say we need to bridge the gap tacitly gives credibility to any purveyor of spooks, ghosts, otherworld and whatever other other claptrap non-realists believe in. Faith is another way of saying I don't know amd am not prepared to know - in any other sphere, we would label these people stupid but cloak it in religion and it becomes respectable.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 11 2006, 11:35 PM)
This is where we are poles apart. I am not specifically anti-religion; I am anti-superstition of which religion is a major part. To say we need to bridge the gap tacitly gives credibility to any purveyor of spooks, ghosts, otherworld and whatever other other claptrap non-realists believe in. Faith is another way of saying I don't know amd am not prepared to know - in any other sphere, we would label these people stupid but cloak it in religion and it becomes respectable.
Physfan
Hi,
In that case, it is probably wisest for you to start (yet another) 'anti-superstition' thread, unless of course you post on this one purely for the purpose of keeping people divided with your personal bias?
Superstition is a fear of the unknown, and seeing as you seem to know very little about it, it would appear that you too are superstitious about 'religion'! So, let me ask you, are you prepared to know any more about religion?
k.
QUOTE
Superstition is a fear of the unknown
Superstition is cloaking the unknown with the supernatural. I know what can be known today. If it isn't known now, then it may be in the future. This is sound, reasonable and sensible; not irrational superstition.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Superstition is a fear of the unknown |
Superstition is cloaking the unknown with the supernatural. I know what can be known today. If it isn't known now, then it may be in the future. This is sound, reasonable and sensible; not irrational superstition.
, and seeing as you seem to know very little about it, it would appear that you too are superstitious about 'religion'
I know enough about three brands having done some reading of their books. None make sense but, then again, they won't because of the basic premise.
QUOTE
So, let me ask you, are you prepared to know any more about religion?
Why would I want to know more about the unknowable? I am a rationalist; I won't beat about the bush - there is no god, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever other brand of fairy you can think up. None of these exist.
Consider for a minute; if one exists, can the others? If one can't, no others can either. None do.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 12 2006, 03:06 AM)
Superstition is cloaking the unknown with the supernatural.
Also known as 'speculation'. And WHY do the superstitious 'cloak the unknown with the supernatural'? - Yes, it's because they fear it. In the same way that you fear reconciliation.
And so, speculation is healthy when not feared, as it should be with science. I agree, but this is not always the case, as you only have to look further on this very forum to see a plethora of 'scientific individuals' also fearing new ideas.
Physfan, I am certainly not defending 'religion', as in earlier posts you may note that I too am very skeptical of it - often refer to it as just 'politics' - but the things you dismiss as 'supernatural' are also things that science aims to either prove or disprove, and without this forerunner of speculation there would be no science to determine.
Humans have evolved from a very brutal suvivalistic psychology, and it is just not possible, given the extremely short evolutionary time span, to change so drastically at the 'drop of a hat'. Thus we ALL carry this previous psychological disadvantage with us (that used to be advantageous!), mostly denying it as we pretend to the illusion of superiority.
There are things we simply do not know. I agree that fearing these things is detrimental, and that 'religion' often holds us back on this journey of further understanding. However, the function that makes us fear something is also the same function that shows us what might be. In a 2-3000 year time-span that could mean that we unconsciously intuit something bigger than just ourselves, but we (collectively, I mean) have not much clue as to what it is.
Someone comes along and sees a way to keep people on a moral track with the idea of 'heaven in the 'afterlife' (probably 'lifted' from the buddhist doctrine of 'karmic reincarnation'), and for a time, it works, until someone with political power comes along and abuses the trust of those it pretends to 'serve' with this new 'religion'. Then 'religion' loses all credibility, even though politics was to blame for the initial abuse. Thus we need science to discredit politicians, as they have now taken over the mantle of 'religious guardians'. The state is the new religion (probably not so 'neu'!).
In purely scientific terms, the brain makes connections in order to 'think'. Ideas are exchanged within the individuals' understanding and logical reason, but such things are subjective as they rely on what is previously 'learned'. Hence, a person growing up in a religious environment will never truely shake off his original indoctrination, however much 'evidence' to the contrary he may come across. This is a Human trait, and not a purely religious one.
As you can see, your skepticism gets me thinking, and not fearing! - So thanks for that!
- Now you know that it may actually be understandable, in scientific and evolutionary terms (psychologically), why would you NOT want to know more, given your previous convictions?
All the best,
k.
Also known as 'speculation'. And WHY do the superstitious 'cloak the unknown with the supernatural'? - Yes, it's because they fear it. In the same way that you fear reconciliation.
And so, speculation is healthy when not feared, as it should be with science. I agree, but this is not always the case, as you only have to look further on this very forum to see a plethora of 'scientific individuals' also fearing new ideas.
Physfan, I am certainly not defending 'religion', as in earlier posts you may note that I too am very skeptical of it - often refer to it as just 'politics' - but the things you dismiss as 'supernatural' are also things that science aims to either prove or disprove, and without this forerunner of speculation there would be no science to determine.
Humans have evolved from a very brutal suvivalistic psychology, and it is just not possible, given the extremely short evolutionary time span, to change so drastically at the 'drop of a hat'. Thus we ALL carry this previous psychological disadvantage with us (that used to be advantageous!), mostly denying it as we pretend to the illusion of superiority.
There are things we simply do not know. I agree that fearing these things is detrimental, and that 'religion' often holds us back on this journey of further understanding. However, the function that makes us fear something is also the same function that shows us what might be. In a 2-3000 year time-span that could mean that we unconsciously intuit something bigger than just ourselves, but we (collectively, I mean) have not much clue as to what it is.
Someone comes along and sees a way to keep people on a moral track with the idea of 'heaven in the 'afterlife' (probably 'lifted' from the buddhist doctrine of 'karmic reincarnation'), and for a time, it works, until someone with political power comes along and abuses the trust of those it pretends to 'serve' with this new 'religion'. Then 'religion' loses all credibility, even though politics was to blame for the initial abuse. Thus we need science to discredit politicians, as they have now taken over the mantle of 'religious guardians'. The state is the new religion (probably not so 'neu'!).
In purely scientific terms, the brain makes connections in order to 'think'. Ideas are exchanged within the individuals' understanding and logical reason, but such things are subjective as they rely on what is previously 'learned'. Hence, a person growing up in a religious environment will never truely shake off his original indoctrination, however much 'evidence' to the contrary he may come across. This is a Human trait, and not a purely religious one.
As you can see, your skepticism gets me thinking, and not fearing! - So thanks for that!
QUOTE
Why would I want to know more about the unknowable?
Physfan
Physfan
- Now you know that it may actually be understandable, in scientific and evolutionary terms (psychologically), why would you NOT want to know more, given your previous convictions?
All the best,
k.
Knot,
Do me a favour and don't ascribe feelings or emotions that I don't have. "Fear reconciliation" - you are kidding. I don't have to tolerate religion or any other superstition - freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. No one has the right to push their religion on another also means that no one has the right to impose any of their superstition on some one who does not want it.
Ridding the world of such nonsense is an aspiration that humanity should strive toward. Knowing there is but one life means that people will treasure it more and protect what they have NOW. Laws would improve, there will be less tolerance of those who seek to reduce the quality of others lives.
Religion has always come from a desire to control the masses; from a Jew who was allegedly nailed up to an illiterate pedophile who dictated the rambling mess that is the Koran to all of the others. It captures people because it causes people to capture themselves - thereby its insidious nature. To 'reconcile' with that irks me.
Viva free, critical thought.
Physfan
QUOTE
Yes, it's because they fear it. In the same way that you fear reconciliation.
Do me a favour and don't ascribe feelings or emotions that I don't have. "Fear reconciliation" - you are kidding. I don't have to tolerate religion or any other superstition - freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. No one has the right to push their religion on another also means that no one has the right to impose any of their superstition on some one who does not want it.
Ridding the world of such nonsense is an aspiration that humanity should strive toward. Knowing there is but one life means that people will treasure it more and protect what they have NOW. Laws would improve, there will be less tolerance of those who seek to reduce the quality of others lives.
Religion has always come from a desire to control the masses; from a Jew who was allegedly nailed up to an illiterate pedophile who dictated the rambling mess that is the Koran to all of the others. It captures people because it causes people to capture themselves - thereby its insidious nature. To 'reconcile' with that irks me.
Viva free, critical thought.
Physfan
QUOTE
Do me a favour and don't ascribe feelings or emotions that I don't have. "Fear reconciliation" - you are kidding.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do me a favour and don't ascribe feelings or emotions that I don't have. "Fear reconciliation" - you are kidding. |
To 'reconcile' with that irks me.
QUOTE
Religion has always come from a desire to control the masses
- Which is why I too am skeptical. Please read the above post. You are describing POLITICS, and 'religion' is just the prefered tool...
At least half of the worlds population claims affinity with some 'religion' or other - What would you do, or say, to these people?
Something of relevance I found today...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Religion has always come from a desire to control the masses |
- Which is why I too am skeptical. Please read the above post. You are describing POLITICS, and 'religion' is just the prefered tool...
At least half of the worlds population claims affinity with some 'religion' or other - What would you do, or say, to these people?
Something of relevance I found today...
"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, create incidents, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." (Hermann Goering)
The trouble is that an 'anti-religious' stance perpetuates the conflict and violence, which is exactly how people are controlled. It is our own violence, our own inner conflict that controllers will 'help us' use against others, and people will not see it, as they believe themselves to be already in control.
QUOTE
It captures people because it causes people to capture themselves...
Yet, by your own admission, you are 'irked' by the idea that people could live harmoniously together.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It captures people because it causes people to capture themselves... |
Yet, by your own admission, you are 'irked' by the idea that people could live harmoniously together.
No one has the right to push their religion on another also means that no one has the right to impose any of their superstition on some one who does not want it
- Ok, so why push your 'anti-religious' stance onto people who are trying to discuss, sensibly, reconciliation then? Surely there are more 'dangerous' places than this one in the world? If you feel so strongly about it, why are you not seriously focusing on the real problems, instead of pushing hate onto a reconciliation thread?
You are actually making a great case FOR a return to older moralisticly oriented 'superstitions', if your alternative is hate and division based. (Or, is that the 'plan'? - if so, it's not really working, is it? People are really fed up with this, after so many thousands of years; Fed up with losing their children to keep the rich in power...)
I'm sure, if you actually bother to read anything posted, you will eventually come to understand that any sickness needs to be healed, not treated with more of the same violence and mistrust that led to the sickness in the first place.
I think you are just grossly missing my point. - It doesn't work, being as hateful as those who would push their hate on to you. Bad influence, that we all share if we are not careful.
You claim that you would like to live in a better world? So, be nice, eh? If you are true to your wishes for a better world, we are actually on the same side!
Finally, and not just to balance out the Go-erring quote...
...a very 'spiritual' man, that never harmed a fly, if he could help it.
k.
No one has the right to push their religion on another also means that no one has the right to impose any of their superstition on some one who does not want it
- Ok, so why push your 'anti-religious' stance onto people who are trying to discuss, sensibly, reconciliation then? Surely there are more 'dangerous' places than this one in the world? If you feel so strongly about it, why are you not seriously focusing on the real problems, instead of pushing hate onto a reconciliation thread?
You are actually making a great case FOR a return to older moralisticly oriented 'superstitions', if your alternative is hate and division based. (Or, is that the 'plan'? - if so, it's not really working, is it? People are really fed up with this, after so many thousands of years; Fed up with losing their children to keep the rich in power...)
I'm sure, if you actually bother to read anything posted, you will eventually come to understand that any sickness needs to be healed, not treated with more of the same violence and mistrust that led to the sickness in the first place.
I think you are just grossly missing my point. - It doesn't work, being as hateful as those who would push their hate on to you. Bad influence, that we all share if we are not careful.
You claim that you would like to live in a better world? So, be nice, eh? If you are true to your wishes for a better world, we are actually on the same side!
Finally, and not just to balance out the Go-erring quote...
QUOTE
"Be the change you would like to see in the world" - M. K. Gandhi
...a very 'spiritual' man, that never harmed a fly, if he could help it.
k.
Knot,
You have read into my posting things that just don't exist, misconstrued others and mistaken others.
Read the words; there is no other meaning.
Adieu, I'm outta here for good,
Physfan
You have read into my posting things that just don't exist, misconstrued others and mistaken others.
Read the words; there is no other meaning.
Adieu, I'm outta here for good,
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 13 2006, 12:18 AM)
Knot,
You have read into my posting things that just don't exist, misconstrued others and mistaken others.
You have read into my posting things that just don't exist, misconstrued others and mistaken others.
QUOTE (Myself+)
If you are true to your wishes for a better world, we are actually on the same side!
- Nevermind...
I sincerely wish you well,
k
- Nevermind...
I sincerely wish you well,
k
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.