Non-attachment in the realm of attachments

by Robin Datta

This essay is a response to ulvfugl.

Then substitute yourself, or Buddha, or anyone, or ‘a human’ for x, and substitute ‘other’, or ‘world’, or Earth, or biosphere, or ‘life’, or ‘my brother, sister, son, daughter, wife, husband, lover …’ for y

Then what should be the quality of relationship between x and y ?

One of the clearest expositions of this problem and its solution were given in the Indian epic, the Raamayana, by Raama’s helper and assistant, Hanumaan, to Raama’s question, “Who are you to me?”

Raama is posited as an incarnation of the Supreme, referred to in Hinduism by several terms, the best-known of which is Brahmaan, the corresponding term in Buddhism being the Sunyata, sometimes translated as the Void. Per the Wikipedia, Śūnyatā, (Sanskrit, also shunyata; Pali: suññatā), is a Buddhist term that is translated into English as emptiness, openness, thusness, etc. Śūnyatā refers to the absence of inherent existence in all phenomena, and it is complimentary to the Buddhist concepts of no-self (Pāli: anatta, Sanskrit: anātman) and dependent origination.

Brahmaan (more commonly spelled Brahman) has to be distinguished from Brahmin, traditionally a member of the academic/priestly class, with the word now accepted in an specific English usage with derogatory connotations. It has also to be distinguished from Brahma, the anthropomorphic deity, that assumes the creative function of the creation-sustenance-destruction continuum as the Creator-god.

Hanumaan, the leader of the monkeys that befriended Raama in the forest, is referred to as the monkey-god, or the individual person in relation to the Supreme.

Buddhist writers note that The Void is not empty For an allegory, a photographic film non-sensitive to wavelengths in infrared, if used to capture infrared images, will turn out blank. It is be noted, however, that both “not empty” and “infrared”, are concepts, phenomena, and therefore fail (cf.
Cartesian Circle).

Hanumaan’s reply:

“dehabuddhyā dāso’ham”

“From one’s point of view of physical existence (of the body and mind) I am your slave.”

“jivabuddhyā tvadamśah”

“From one’s point of view of the Supreme in an individualised aspect, identified with the constraints of physical existence, I am a ray from you” (as in a ray of sunlight from the sun).

“ātmabuddbyā tvamevāham”

“From one’s point of view of the Supreme in an individualised aspect, but not identified with the constraints of physical existence, I am your very Self.”

This first case corresponds to an attitude fostered by theistic religions. In an idealised manner, the individual is to consider oneself to be an instrument of the Divine Will. In Christianity it is a servant of God, in Islam it is a slave of Allah, an Abdullah (عبدالله), and in Judaism it is an eved hashem (עבד יהוה). In Hindu symbolism, one description is that of becoming Krishna’s flute.

The second case involves a sublimation of the first attitude. The theistic religions tread rather gingerly about this. In various theistic sects it borders on, or even ventures into the heretical. However, the Judaic tradition narrates that God animated the clay (= adamah in Hebrew, hence the name Adam) image by breathing the Spirit into it; in Kabbalah it is noted that the Spirit never separated from its source. In the Hindu tradition, this is expresses as “Jiva is Shiva”: here the Jiva is the Supreme individualised and identified with the constraints of physical existence, while Shiva is the deity anthropomorphised/personalised.

The third case involves complete identity, and is not overtly subscribed to by any theistic sect. In the Hindu tradition it is referred to as “Atmnn is Brahman”

The three cases represent a progression in the disappearance in the sense of an “I”.

In Hinduism, the mind is not considered separate from the body, similar to the view in modern neuroscience. The mind is termed the “antakarana” in Hinduism, the “internal instrument” and is considered complementary to the five senses, making their functions possible.

With regard to inanimate objects and sentient beings, in the first case one is a steward of the Divine, and all of these are one’s charges: the obligation rests upon one to take optimal care of them all. This includes one’s body and mind, which are the first among all the charges assigned to one by the Divine. This is the nidus of non-attachment: one cedes one’s personal claim upon anything and everything to the Divine. All actions are preformed as if at the behest of the Divine.

In the second case, it is the Divine Light, as the light of one’s consciousness, that illuminates all objects, both animate and inanimate, making them manifest in the realm of one’s awareness. Nothing exists apart from one’s consciousness, and all things are recognised as oneself. One’s attitudes and actions are in concordance with this recognition. In the Buddhist tradition, the last words of the Buddha were “be a light unto yourselves and a lamp unto others”.

In the third case, the sense of an “I” does not exist. At the deepest level of conscious awareness, there is neither an “I” nor a “thou”, neither existence nor non-existence. Our perspective from within the confines of existence does not extend into it. Yet in that third case, the body-mind continues to function in a conventional manner because the momentum of those tendencies that have become manifest impels it on.

The allegory used is that of a potter who intermittently gives a push to his wheel to keep it spinning. When he is done with shaping his pots, he does not give it any more pushes. The wheel, however, continues to spin under its own momentum until that momentum is exhausted.

Even without these three cases, all sentient beings that retain a sense of an “I” are motivated to every intentional action and intentional inaction by the anticipation of consequences to be felt by the “I”.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the illumined sage Yajnavalkya teaches his wife:

Then Yajnavalkya said: “Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self. “Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self. “Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, hut they are loved for the sake of the self. “Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.

_______________

Robin Datta was born in Quetta, Pakistan in 1949. His father was one of three Hindu officers in the Pakistan Army at that time, and a veteran of the Burma campaign of WW2 as a Regimental Medical Officer in the Royal British Indian Army. Robin attended nine different schools as his father was posted to different places. His mother was also an officer in the Nurse Corps of the Royal British Indian Army in WW2. His mother’s native language was Telegu, and his father’s was Bengali: their common language was English (a consequence of two centuries of British Raj), and hence he spoke English natively (as his first language), but had to unlearn it rapidly when exposed to the American Language in New York. He also speaks Urdu, the lingus franca in those parts, natively (natively bilingual).

Datta graduated with a medical degree from Bangladesh in 1972: in order to graduate, it was necessary to take a medical history from the local patients, and as a consequence he learnt Bengali. He moved to New York in 1973. He served in the Army two years (one in Korea, and half a year in Desert Storm), and served three years in the Navy, and was a Flight Surgeon in both branches of service.

Datta completed Family Practice Residency in Louisville, Kentucky, and passed board exams, becoming certified both in Family Practice and Emergency Medicine. He worked in Emergency Medicine from 1983 to 2009 in Kentucky and California (San Jose, Hollister, and Fresno in California). He is single (never married) and retired with no dependents.

Almost all of what he learnt about Eastern religions was acquired after coming to America. The knowledge of Bengali helped significantly in understanding the nuances of cognate terms in Sanskrit and Pali.

Datta is not sure what to do next. Whatever it is, it must take into consideration imminent collapse. He is open to and invites any possibilities and suggestions.

Comments 205

  • Greatly flattered, indeed surprised too, by the honour, Robin, of having provoked all that 🙂

  • I wonder if you can clarify this bit :

    “In Hinduism, the mind is not considered separate from the body, similar to the view in modern neuroscience.”

    I’m not sure I have any complete understanding of the Hindu perspective – doesn’t it differ across the vast range of thought embraced by Hinduism ? – nor that I have a complete understanding of the perspective of modern neuroscientists, which I know covers a wide spectrum of views, e.g. Penrose and Hameroff, quantum entanglement and non-locality, yes, I’d put money on that…

    http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html

    others have other theories, as you’ll know.

    http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=86&pgtype=1

    others think we are all in a computer simulation… not me.

    http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science/2012/9/Consciousness-Through-the-Prism-the-Simulation-Argument

    Regarding the Western/neuroscience perspective, I favour the view of Raymond Tallis

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jul/06/defence-wonder-raymond-tallis-review

    Regarding my own personal view, after many decades of zazen, what can I say ?
    hahaha…

    Whatever I say will be wrong, because it will be an interpretation in the mind of the reader… not what I really mean… so, yes, the words from Lao Tzu on the previous thread… essentially a communication problem.

    However, perhaps the clearest mapping of the territory that I know of, is in the Theravada tradition, possibly because it was the first I learned that made sense of my own direct experiences…. google provides 11000 results, hahahaha, no need for me to say more 🙂

    http://www.jhanas.com/

  • National Fisheries Disasters Declared in U.S.

    With the declaration Thursday of a national fishery disaster, American food producers are now facing catastrophes on two fronts.

    Severely low stocks of key groundfish species such as cod and flounder spurred the declaration by the Commerce Department, after a two-year campaign by members of the region’s congressional delegation. The move clears the way for disaster aid to be allocated to coastal communities.

    Fishery disasters were also declared in Alaska, because of low returns of Chinook salmon in some key regions, and Mississippi, where flooding in the spring of 2011 damaged some of the state’s oyster and blue crab fisheries.

    At the same time, hot and dry conditions continue to plague large parts of the U.S. Plains and southern states as the worst U.S. drought in more than five decades expands its grip on some key farming states.

    At least “moderate” levels of drought have now enveloped more than 64 per cent of the contiguous United States, up from 63.39 per cent the week before, according to the Drought Monitor, a weekly compilation of data gathered by federal and academic scientists.

    “This is the greatest extent of drought we’ve seen all summer,” said Brian Fuchs, a climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “The drought is easing in the east, but we’re seeing more of it expand in the Central Plains, Rockies and Dakotas.”

    The drought has been exacerbated by long stretches of high temperatures.

    “That has been the kicker all summer, how hot it has been,” said Mr. Fuchs.

    Kansas, in particular, remained almost entirely parched, with more than 60 per cent of the state in exceptional drought and more than 88 per cent in extreme drought.

    Thursday’s fishery disaster declaration is “a huge win” for the region’s fishermen, said U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democrat. “Our fishermen are the farmers of the sea and today our fishermen are facing exactly what farmers in the Midwest are facing – a drought,” Mr. Kerry said. “They need our help to get through it.”

    In a statement, acting U.S. Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank said she was “deeply concerned” about the potential impact to the northeast fishing industry of lower catch limits.

    “Fishermen in the Northeast are facing financial hardships because of the unexpectedly slow rebuilding of fish stocks that have limited their ability to catch enough to make ends meet,” Ms. Blank said.

    Mr. Kerry and other Massachusetts lawmakers have requested $100-million (U.S.) in economic disaster assistance.

    The crux of the problem for the fishing industry is that despite reduced catch limits in recent years, several key fish stocks in the formerly teeming waters of the Gulf of Maine and on the Georges Bank off the New England coast are not rebuilding, Ms. Blank said.

    That will potentially force catch limits to be even lower for the 2013 fishing season, which starts May 1.

    The Northeast Seafood Coalition, an industry group, welcomed Thursday’s declaration but said regulations are still needed that better account for “natural cycles of complex ecosystems” rather than making fishermen what it said were scapegoats.

    Conditions in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Iowa grew more dire, according to the Drought Monitor.

    _____________________________

    From the Globe and Mail (attributed to Reuters)

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/us-fishery-disaster-adds-to-drought-woes/article4542732/

  • Is there EVEN LESS ice in the Arctic than the data show?

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/14-4

  • The body-mind-intellect complex is a part of the physical world. A distinction is maintained between the processing of sensory inputs and the intellect. But even the intellect is an  epiphenomenon of the physical world.

  • BC nurse – Wow we may be in deeper trouble – ie extinction before 2050 – ah heck, extinction is extinction and all attachments end…..

    How did you like Kerry’s statement “Thursday’s fishery disaster declaration is “a huge win” for the region’s fishermen, said U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democrat. “Our fishermen are the farmers of the sea and today our fishermen are facing exactly what farmers in the Midwest are facing – a drought,” Mr. Kerry said. “They need our help to get through it.” Right, just a problem for a few years and then the good times will roll again. Like they did in New Orleans Laissez les Bon Temps Rouler http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=9382539&q=hi&newref=1

    Laissez les Bon Temps Rouler

    We came to Canada a long time ago
    But the Brits showed us no mercy and we had to go
    Our cities fell and we set sail
    From the shores of La Nouvelle France out into the gale
    In Louisiana we started again
    We fished and farmed, made a new life here and then
    We celebrated a new day
    And we sang “Laissez les bon temps rouler”

    All we wanted was to be left alone
    On a patch of paradise that we could call our own
    Fish the Gulf, dance and pray
    But when the Revolution came we went and joined the fray
    And when we came back from the awful fight
    The Battle of Baton Rouge gave us nightmares day and night
    But we got the fiddles out to play
    And we sang “Laissez les bon temps rouler”

    We fished the seas and when we came back
    It was time for fais do do and all the crawfish you could pack
    La Grand Derangement a memory
    That had long ago been traded for shrimp and joie de vivre
    The Great Upheaval far in the past
    Now we had found a new world that we all thought would last
    Cajun music there by the bay
    “Laissez les bon temps rouler”

    When the oil companies began to drill
    We did our best to get along and we kept fishing still
    It was hard but we persevered
    We brought our catch to market like we’d done two hundred years
    Some went to Texas to work the oil
    But most of us stayed here on this Cajun soil
    We’d work the Gulf, come home and say
    “Laissez les bon temps rouler”

    We survived Katrina and so much more
    But when the oil started gushing out on the ocean floor
    I guess it’s time to say good-bye
    There’s no life here for a fisherman when all the fish do now is die
    Maybe California is where I’ll land
    I’ve heard that there’s still fish there beyond the golden sand
    But now I can only cry to hear some fool say
    “Laissez les bon temps rouler”

  • Apart from a summation of the three statements from tradition, are you stating that the third statement, (“ātmabuddbyā tvamevāham”), is essentially:

    “From the point of view of an Enlightened being alive in human form, there is no distinction, or an identity with the questioner when answering the question, “Who are you to me?”…?

    If this is correct, it follows that the other two previous statements are untrue, and as I think you implied generated from the viewpoints of unenlightened observers/traditional positions.

    This is essentially not a problem for the Enlightened being in the situation, (as if anything could be), but the long tradition of the deep Compassion for all beings as an inherent expression of the Enlightened in human form would seem to suggest there is a type of link with the unenlightened beings.

    Perhaps it is what the Enlightened being does, when the paradoxical samsaric beings are whirling in the void, lost as we are in the vortex of Ego, unaware of our root Enlightened condition, yet to be realised.

    I can only point to the revelation of Adi Da Samraj, who has realised the Self and understood the Truth of the Real condition of existance. On this issue of the apparent other, He has addressed it, IMO as a central point of understanding. The illusion of I is first generated fron the first of three errors of POV. Identification, Differentiation, and Desire.
    ‘Identification’ is the habit of the Ego activity towards unity with a contracted or limited POV in the cosmic domain, (Answering the questions to self.. “What am I?” and “Where am I?” in the void. The body-mind is the screen matrix that blocks out the majority of the cosmic domain from conscious perception, and tunes in the small portion we percieve, i.e. Sensation, Thinking, Feeling Intuition.

    Adi Da Samraj’s unique realisation of Seventh Stage Enlightenment, relinquished at the age of 2, in order to go through and submit to the life of seeking, and the ordeal of transformation required by any body-mind to awaken to that Enlightened condition, is a gift to all beings, because in the great tradition, it is an intimate Relationship with an Awakened individual that is the key and main way of maturing beyond the Ego activity.

    If your interests and motivation is to grow beyond the Ego suffering of limited happiness then I cannot recommend the teachings of Adi Da Samraj enough. Being the Real deal, there is no bullshit, and many I have known have left the worldwide congregation of devotees, primarily because the way may be Blissful, but it requires everything you presently are to be sacrificed, and burnt away, and that is something most Westerners, and others too, are generally unprepared for.

    I wish to stress that at the centre of Adi Da’d Teachings is a Relationship, not a technique. The best way I can depict that relationship is between the Realised Heart of existance and the suffering tormented anxious fearful Ego. Simple.

    I have to say that all I have seen, heard, and felt in my heart regarding Adi Da’s teachings, the transformative power and bliss, is consistant with Love and Compassion for all beings. No question. He is not a cult leader or fake. As I have posted before, this is self authenticating and cannot be proved by argument.

    If you don’t know what to do now, even in the midst of this collapse, it is the same as if it were in the midst of great bounty. If you are disposed and have the impulse to grow beyond the Ego suffering state, the conditions of existance don’t matter at all, there is only the Way.

    Your essay was well worth reading, as the illusion of self and other is a great paradox for humans across all time.

  • transformation required by any body-mind to awaken

    Body-minds do not awaken, they perish just as Kathy C describes.

  • Robin Datta

    You wrote:

    “Body-minds do not awaken, they perish just as Kathy C describes.”

    I think there is semantic ambiguity here.

    The body-mind is a transitory vehicle, but it can be illumined with Enlightenment, and therefore, outshined while in living form. In the case of an Enlightened incarnation the body-mind is no longer, if at all, a locus of identification, and is moment to moment outshined. Yes, it will rot. So the body-mid is only necessary thereafter to remain animated in this world/domain.

    Previous to Awakening the self perception of the one who identifies with that body-mind is of the body-mind as its POV. The Truth, however, is a realisation that the body-mind is an effect of the self contraction. Once the self contraction is released the body-mind is obviated as a necessity for existance, but remains a necessity in this domain as a life-body.

    In the case of Adi Da Samraj, He retained the bodily vehicle many years after the impulse to leave the body arose for the sake of his Teaching Work, Revelation Work, and to fully establish a mature community of devotees to endure in perpetuity. In that instance he maintained the body-mind beyond that impulse, by consciously, via a yogic energy process I have no understanding of, that allowed that vehicle to stay alive for that time. Once his revelation was utterly complete, and he had sufficiently empowered his Sancturies his Body-mind was relinquished immediately.

    Technically a body-mind cannot awaken, as you point out. It can be outshone, however, and the being associated with that bodymind can Awaken to it’s Self condition.

  • I think the problem here, re attachment and non-attachment, is that it becomes ‘how many angels on the head of a pin’, opaque and obscure. Needs to be explained in simple language that anybody can understand, for it to have any relevance or utility in the real world.

  • Antonio Damasio (neuroscientist) wrote The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. His belief from his research is that the brain interacts with the rest of the body and in that interaction is the roots of our self awareness. We are a whole, our mind is part of our whole self that came from the genes that combined when our parents had sex. The mind part of our body, ie the part of our brain (and the nerves and hormones that interact with it and the rest of the body) that thinks rather than the part that controls bodily functions, can be destroyed before the body as in Alzheimers or other brain injuries and the body goes on. The mind part of our body and brain however cannot continue if enough of the brain that controls bodily functions is destroyed or some other vital body part (heart, lungs) no longer function. Our mind is nothing without our body. Yet it seems to be more “us” to us than our body as indicated when someone has Alzheimers and the family says “they are no longer there” even though the body is still there and functioning.

    Ulvfugl does that still sound like I support Descartes? Also by Damasio is the book Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain which I liked quite well, as I agreed with his assessment that Descartes was in error. As I noted on the last topic, when I told my Philospher husband that someone on the discussion site thought I ascribed to Descartes, he had a good laugh and said nothing could be farther from the truth.

    From Wiki on Damasio “Antonio Damasio (born February 25, 1944 in Lisbon, Portugal) is a University Professor (an award based on multi-disciplinary interests and significant accomplishments in several disciplines) and David Dornsife Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Southern California, where he heads USC’s Brain and Creativity Institute. Prior to taking up his posts at USC, in 2005, Damasio was M.W. Van Allen Professor and Head of Neurology at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics from 1976 to 2005. He is also Adjunct Professor at the Salk Institute.

    Damasio is the author of several best-selling books which describe his scientific thinking. “As a leading neuroscientist, Damasio has dared to speculate on neurobiological data, and has offered a theory about the relationship between human emotions, human rationality, and the underlying biology.”[1]”

    Waiting for the used price to come down on his latest – Self Comes to Mind, Constructing the Conscious Brain https://www.amazon.com/Self-Comes-Mind-Constructing-Conscious/dp/030747495X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347724767&sr=1-1

  • Russian scientists have discovered spots in the Arctic Ocean where mass emissions of methane can be observed.
    According to the press-service of the expedition aboard The Viktor Buinitsky research vessel, the diameter of some of the ‘methane fields’ found in the northern part of the Laptev Sea exceeds 1 kilometre.The new discoveries will help to understand the mechanism of global warming on Earth, experts believe. In their opinion, emissions of methane could have catastrophic consequences for the climate of our planet.

    https://arctic-news.blogspot.ca/2012/09/methane-emissions-discovered-in-arctic-ocean.html

  • Okay Kathy, I’ll have another go…

    “…as I agreed with his assessment that Descartes was in error. As I noted on the last topic, when I told my Philospher husband that someone on the discussion site thought I ascribed to Descartes, he had a good laugh and said nothing could be farther from the truth.”

    I think this is irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make. If it had not been for Descartes, there wouldn’t have been any science of the kind we’ve had for the last few centuries. ( There would, of course, have been something, but speculating on alternative history is somewhat futile ).

    It doesn’t really matter what you personallybelieve. You’re embedded in a culture, part of which is the worldview of science, and the way science has developed, following Descartes, is materialistic, rationalist, reductionist, dualistic, etc.

    It makes no difference if Descartes was mistaken. I believe he was, you believe he was, lots of people have criticised his thinking on all sorts of grounds. But we still ended up with the legacy of his analysis. I’m talking about the assumptions embedded in culture, not anyone’s personal opinion.

    A parallel would be that you personally reject the Bible. I’m not arguing with you about that rejection, or the rights and wrongs of the Bible, I’m saying that the entire culture in which you exist is influenced by the Judaeo-Christian heritage.

    So, trying to recall where this began in the previous thread, when you speak about life beginning with sperm and egg, and ending with the decay of the body back into the earth, this conception ( I’m not saying it’s right or wrong ! ) is what your culture has taught to you. If you had lived on a different continent in a different historical era, the conceptions might/would have been, entirely different.

    If it had not been for Descartes and the Enlightenment and the development of the scientific method, we probably wouldn’t even be talking in terms cell biology and embryology, etc. Ideas and conceptual frameworks have histories, they derive from historical periods and cultural influences. If we had not had the Judaeo-Christian influence, or the Cartesian influence, we might still be viewing life, birth and death, the structure of our individual being, according to the ancient Egyptian model, outlined below.

    To emphasise, I’m not arguing for or against your personal beliefs, or for the value or accuracy of particular beliefs, I’m attempting to point out thatwhateverwe say is conditioned by the broader culture in which we live, which, in your case and mine, is dominated by the Western capitalist materialist Judaeo-Christian Anglo-american belief system… that’s where the terminology, the concepts, the whole manner of thinking, of e.g. people like Damasio, is rooted… it’s full of implicit assumptions. If we lived in ancient Egypt, we’d still hold unconscious implicit cultural assumptions, but they’d be very different.

    The “ka” is a very complex part of the symbolism in ancient Egyptian mythology and represents several things: the ka is a symbol of the reception of the life powers from each man from the gods, it is the source of these powers, and it is the spiritual double that resides with every man.

    The ka as a spiritual double was born with every man and lived on after he died as long as it had a place to live. The ka lived within the body of the individual and therefore needed that body after death. This is why the Egyptians mummified their dead. If the body decomposed, their spiritual double would die and the deceased would lose their chance for eternal life. An Egyptian euphemism for death was “going to one’s ka”. After death the ka became supreme. Kings thus claimed to have multiple kas. Rameses II announced that he had over 20.

    The ka was more than that though. When the ka acted, all was well, both spiritually and materially. Sin was called “an abomination of the ka”. The ka could also be seen as the conscience or guide of each individual, urging kindness, quietude, honor and compassion. In images and statues of the ka, they are depicted as their owner in an idealized state of youth, vigor and beauty. The ka is the origin and giver of all the Egyptians saw as desirable, especially eternal life.

    Kas resided in the gods as well. Egyptians often placated the kas of the deities in order to receive favors. The divine kas also served as guardians. Osiris was often called the ka of the pyramids.

    The god Khnemu who was said to create each man out of clay on his potter’s wheel also molded the ka at the same time.

    http://www.egyptianmyths.net/ka.htm

  • Of course, it wasn’t only Descartes, and it wasn’t only the Judaeo-Christian influence, there’s a sort of cultural umbilical cord, a rope, going back into history, made up of thousands of strands, and each with thousands of sub-strands, from all sorts of places, Rome, Greece, India, Africa, but I’m using the Cartesian paradigm as a sort of short-hand term, a label, to point to the particular way that we view the mind and body and the physical world and life and consciousness, etc, in our contemporary culture.

    Here’s a quote from Stan Grof, of whom I’m a fan :

    “Industrial civilization is the only human group that has this attitude toward these experiences. Ancient and native cultures held these states in great esteem and spent a lot of time and energy developing safe and powerful ways of inducing them. What I believe happened is that at the time of the Industrial and Scientific Revolution, major discoveries were turned into technological inventions, which brought on a tremendous adoration of reason. In fact, for some years during the French Revolution, Notre Dame in Paris was called the Temple of Reason. When this happened, everything that was not rational was seen as irrational, as a kind of embarrassing leftover from humanity’s infancy in the Dark Ages.

    We are now sort of a mature, civilized, rational people, and we can see that everything that is not rational is not irrational but transrational. Mystics can function perfectly rationally in everyday life, but they have also experienced dimensions of reality that are normally hidden and incorporated them into their worldview. They value the experience and source of such powerful insights.

    I think what’s happening now with transpersonal psychology and consciousness research is that we are recognizing our mistake—that we have somehow thrown out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting these states. Now psychologists are slowly recognizing the value of this special subcategory of experiences. There are others that still should be considered pathology, of course, such as delirium tremens or uremia. These are not holotropic states but disoriented states in which you don’t know who you are, where you are, what is happening, what year it is, and so on. But that’s not what happens in holotropic states. In holotropic states, you have a kind of double orientation. Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler talked about it as doppelte Buchführung, which means “double bookkeeping.” You have one foot in ordinary reality and the other foot in other realities.”

    http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-fifteen-october/psychology-of-the-future/

  • Re what Damasio says, it appears that the matter remains disputed.

    “WHERE does the mind reside? It is a question that has occupied the best brains for thousands of years. The answer remains as elusive as ever, according to neurologists who have demonstrated that a patient retains a sense of self despite lacking three regions of the brain thought to be essential for self-awareness. But other researchers disagree with their conclusion.”

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528802.400-location-of-the-mind-remains-a-mystery.html

  • Here’s another reference back to the previous thread and Yorchichan’s fear of death and desire for an afterlife.

    “The fear of death is one of the most tragic consequences of being human in this imperfect world. For many of us, it gnaws at the very fiber of our being throughout our lives, especially if we have lost loved ones close to us. Empirically, there is such a sense of finality that the suffering is sometimes overwhelming and interminable. We, however, have been deceived by those who wish to control us and manipulate us. We have not been given the appropriate teaching, which had been handed down for millenia, from our ancestors. In fact, the brutalizing fear of death we experience today is a product, for the most part, of the last two thousand years of Christian domination. In their maniacal zeal to wipe out thousands of years of religious and mystical traditions, the Church Fathers demonized teachings on death in order to have a more controlling effect upon the social order.”

    http://www.soulspelunker.com/2012/09/a-fear-of-icy-death.html

  • “…our way of explaining human behaviour has to break out of the existing paradigm…”

  • The kleshas (“defilement”) are described both in Buddhist and Hindu traditions. 

    In the latter tradition there are five:

    Ignorance (avidya)
    Ego (asmita)
    Attachment to Pleasure (raga)
    Aversion to Pain (dvesa)
    Fear of Death (abhinivesah)

  • At its root, the fear of death is the fear of the dissolution of the sense of “I”. The sense of “I” is the source of duality.

  • Yes, I agree with you. But at the same time, I submit, we all require a sense of ‘I’, to survive in daily life.

    I suspect that is why a sense of I evolved. The organism that we are requires an executive function, to oversee and decide priorities. We are so complex, with so much potential conflict, like the messages from digestion ” I must eat now “, and the messages from the eyes “No, this is a dangerous place, not suitable for eating here “, and the messages from all the other senses ” There’s damage in this ankle, it needs rest “, etc, etc, etc. So the I has an important place.

    Perhaps it also has a role in our social functioning, as social primates, to watch for infringements of status, or to form bonds and alliances, so we have to maintain ‘face’, and keep the I in good standing, so we have pride, dignity, self-esteem, good physical posture and so forth.

    But then comes our quest for spiritual insight, when the I is really nothing but an annoying obstacle. I think the answer is to understand it, to see through its tricks and disadvantages. Then we can be ‘in the world, but not of the world…

    Shunryu Suzuki was asked how much ego a person needed. He replied, ‘Just enough to stop you stepping in front of a bus.’

    In a religious retreat, or similar safe situation, I think it is appropriate to dispense with ego entirely. However, when dealing with business matters, or the general public, how else can you communicate and relate, except via ego ? I think if you have lost all ego in such situations, then you need to wear a synthetic version, to appear as a normal functioning individual.

  • “What is the implication once the truth is realized that both the human body and the physical world are actually images taking place within the individual Soul? I have posed this question to several people over the years who simply couldn’t understand it. Their misunderstanding stemmed from the simple fact that they had been so deeply indoctrinated into modern culture and linear/reductive thought processes that the very idea seemed non-sensical to them.

    Most people today (I’d say well over 98%) perceive themselves as an individual consciousness inhabiting a slowly decaying human body. These are the only two perspectives. There is no third option. One represents the proper orientation of the human being, and the other represents the dis-oriented view of the modern individuality, which has effectively entombed itself in a flesh and blood casket from which they believe there can be no escape.”

    http://transmissionsfromtheimaginal.blogspot.fr/2012/09/the-secret-of-orientation.html

  • If you don’t find God in the next person you meet, it is a waste of time looking for Him further.
    – Mohandas Keramchand Gandhi

  • Hahahaha… Person ??

    I say ‘There is nowhere where God is not’

  • ulvfugl you wrote “So, trying to recall where this began in the previous thread, when you speak about life beginning with sperm and egg, and ending with the decay of the body back into the earth, this conception ( I’m not saying it’s right or wrong ! ) is what your culture has taught to you.”

    Wrong. My culture taught me that while fertilization created my body, God gave me a soul that goes to heaven or earth after death. I believed that for a long time even though I was never fond of the idea of an afterlife, good or bad. I am very counter cultural to think that humans don’t have a soul, that everything I am is part of my physical body.

    If there is a god it is either powerless or evil. A god with the power of creation and the power to act in people’s lives is proven evil by the state of the world. A god without those powers is irrelevant.

    Descartes by the way not only supported the idea that we have a soul, he knew where it lodged in our body
    “Descartes and the Pineal Gland

    The pineal gland is a tiny organ in the center of the brain that played an important role in Descartes’ philosophy. He regarded it as the principal seat of the soul and the place in which all our thoughts are formed. In this entry, we discuss Descartes’ views concerning the pineal gland. We also put them into a historical context by describing the main theories about the functions of the pineal gland that were proposed before and after his time.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/

  • ulvfugl you wrote “I think this is irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make. If it had not been for Descartes, there wouldn’t have been any science of the kind we’ve had for the last few centuries.”

    I hardly think that any one person is so vital. History books like to attribute ideas to one person as it keeps them short. This gives one the impression that without that one person we would never have had a certain idea or method.

    per wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History
    “The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents describe empirical methods in astronomy,[97] mathematics,[98] and medicine.[99] The ancient Greek philosopher Thales in the 6th century BC refused to accept supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena, proclaiming that every event had a natural cause. The development of deductive reasoning by Plato was an important step towards the scientific method. Empiricism seems to have been formalized by Aristotle, who believed that universal truths could be reached via induction…..
    The modern scientific method crystallized no later than in the 17th and 18th centuries. In his work Novum Organum (1620) — a reference to Aristotle’s Organon — Francis Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism.[104] Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for a scientific method’s guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse on Method. The writings of Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes are considered critical in the historical development of the modern scientific method, as are those of John Stuart Mill.[105]”

    One of the things that pushed Darwin to finally publish was the fact that Russell Wallace was about to publish per wiki on Wallace “He is best known for independently proposing a theory of evolution due to natural selection that prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own theory.”

    Descartes certainly deserves credit. I am a great fan of the scientific method (which has not yet discovered a soul- pineal gland or anywhere else) but certainly reject his Cartesian Dualism which is what most people refer to when they talk about being a supporter of Descartes.

    from wiki on Dualism “The first significant argument against dualism came from Thomas Hobbes’s (1588–1679) materialist critique of the human person. Hobbes argues that all of human experience comes from biological processes contained within the body (see: The Leviathan[7]). In response to Hobbes, the French Philosopher Rene Descartes (1596–1650) developed Cartesian Dualism, which posits that there is a divisible, mechanical body and an indivisible, immaterial mind which interact with one another. The body perceives external inputs and the awareness of them comes from the soul. The point of interaction between the two are at the pineal gland in the brain.[8]”

  • Off-topic, unless one has no attraction to the old climate or aversion to the new one:

    Sea Ice Loss 2012: What Do The Records Mean?

  • Here is what Ramana Haharshi had to say about where the mind is located in the human body, as per Wiki:

    “That which rises in this body as ‘I’ is the mind. If one enquires ‘In which place in the body does the thought ‘I’ rise first?’, it will be known to be in the heart [spiritual heart is ‘two digits to the right from the centre of the chest’]. Even if one incessantly thinks ‘I’, ‘I’, it will lead to that place (Self)'”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Teachings

    Ramana Maharshi would ask ‘Who am I?’ as the means to realise the Self, or the transcendental reality. He advocated the deepest emersion and consideration of this enquiry, as IMO a counteregoic action to release the identification with the bodymind.

    He pointed out in debate with a western devotee that when referring to himself, the devotee instinctively pointed to the right side of the Heart region on his own body. Ramana Maharshi explained that this is what everyone does because that is where we feel it.

    Can you imagine pointing to your head in conversation, it would seem out of place. That is no proof, however, merely something to note BTW.

    ulvfugl and Kathy C

    You both address very long range cultural content and dynamics, many of which have conflicted and vied for dominance as the reigning cosmology of the day.

    One reason the general Westernised public still lives somewhere between Newtonian physics and Sunday School Bible stories is that these two stories explain in their own domains the ‘common sense’ view of what is going on.
    As pointed out by ulvfugl, the Quantum mechanics development has shown the scholars that Newtons billiard balls were not the full story, but to the High School educated moderns that is not something that describes the goings on in their everyday lives. It may well be what is going on, but it is not at all clear to the said ‘modern’ that anything needzs fixing in the cosmology department.

    I once did an expiriment with a regular deck of cards. An aquaintance shuffled the deck very well. The deck was placed face down and I cut the deck to make sure both the bottom card was not viewed, and the deck was not switched or otherwise rigger.

    I placed my fingetips from my right hand on the first card on th deck as it asat on the table. I attempted to ‘read’ the card as to red or black. If I ‘felt’ the card was red, I moved it facedown and still unseen to me or any observers, to the left. If I ‘felt’ it was black then I did the same but to the right. As I proceeded I found five cards I could not be sure of, and I put them at the top, that is further away than the deck, but still in the middle. At the completion of the deck I replaced the five I had not been sure of where the deck was, and proceeded to resolve them Iand I did, some to red some to balck. I took up the red pile and flipped them over to count how many I had got correct, and then I did the same for the black pile.
    To my amazement I had gott 32 red correct and 32 black correct. I and the two aquaintances looked at each other stunned.

    I have not been able to correctly calculate the scientific ‘odds’ for that outcome. I know it is a very very very small ratio.
    I have to say that this was a sponteineous act on our part. As I attempted to determine the first card I arrived at a simple kind of visual tester which was like a needle on a fuel guage on a car.When the needle moved to the left it was oin a red zone, and to the right it was in a black zone. The five cards I had some difficulty with initially did not move significsantly on the first try.

    I can only say that I felt in each case the needle was indicating the truth of the card I was touching. The visual needle and guage was also a sponteineous development.

    We immediately tried the experiment again, and I did not feel as focussed as before, but the results werre aproximately 80% correct, which I believe is also a very small probability.

    I have told several people with high mathematical training over the years since then, so they might help me get a probability ratio, and in the three cases they all did not believe me, and the last one right out said I was lying. I was prtty friendly with that guy, but after that I lost some interest.

    Even the scientific cosmology provides for the outcome I encountered, but it is a very small probability. So small that three mathemeticians did not believe it possible. That is even more strange, that that was not even considdered to be that one slim chance event. They were fully embedded in the scientific cosmology but could neot even accept it.

    I can only say that I was able at that time, in those moments, to experience a difference between a red and black card. How is still a matter of conjecture, even to me. But, as we demonstrated, it was not possible to do it again, because the moments were not the same, and the scientific requirement that evidence needs to be repeatable, (ie at will), regardless of the time element).

    I can recommend the wonderfully funny and thought provaking play by Tom Stoppard titled, ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ard Dead’, made also into a film, I think also directed by the playwrite himself, starring Gary Oldman and Tim Roth. I especially like the coin tossing scene that takes place as they are summoned to the King.

    ‘Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead – Part 1’

    Part 2 also has moe=re on the heads angle.

  • Whoops, that firt time it should have beenn ‘Ramana Maharshi’… sorry guys and RM.

  • Um.. that also should have been…

    ‘To my amazement I had gott 26 red correct and 26 black correct. “.. very sorry, typing too fast.’ That should pull the odds back a bit…

  • “How is still a matter of conjecture, even to me. But, as we demonstrated, it was not possible to do it again, because the moments were not the same, and the scientific requirement that evidence needs to be repeatable, (ie at will), regardless of the time element).”

    I seem to remember recorded cases of blind, people without eyes, who could see with their hands, the skin of their back, and so forth… I don’t have time to look for cites just now… Yes, I think that repeatability requirement in the scientific method requires reappraisal. It’s not appropriate for making advances in anomalous areas, and to insist upon it is irrational IMO. As some guy said in a video I watched recently, 99 people jump off a building and go Newtonian splat, but one flies away. Conventional orthodox science says ignore the one, as error, an aberration, statistical noise. But that’s absurd. It’s the one that flies away that should be the focus of interest for a true scientist, because it’s the odd exceptions that point to possible problems with the theoretical model. It’s humans that invented this requirement for repeatability, to suit their own preferences. There’s no reason to suppose that the Universe, nature, has to fit with our petty logic and desire for tidy rules. In fact, if science has taught us anything, it’s that we constantly encounter bizarre and astonishing phenomena that confound our expectations.
    What a scientific method without required repeatabilty would look like, I’m not sure, it sounds a bit scary, which is perhaps why they avoid the issues.

  • ulvfugl has there ever been a case of someone dropping off a tall building and flying away unless he has a glider?

    The scientific method of repeat-ability is written into our genomes and those of animals. That is what the Pavolov’s dog experiment was all about. Bring food when you ring a bell and soon the dogs distinguish a repeatable event and start salivating with on the ring of the bell. Children only stand up under a specific table a few times before they recognize that the repeatable event of hitting their head is telling them something about their height relative to the height of the table. If we didn’t have such a program written in our genome we would be in deep trouble. If we kept sticking our hand into fire because maybe once it wouldn’t burn we would probably in the end loose the hand.

    Many things in the world are quite complex so that attaching cause and effect can be difficult. If one human gets malaria from a bite from a mosquito and another does not, we can ignore the one who does not. But science found out first that mosquitoes carry the malaria germ and that it was not breathing swamp water that caused malaria. Then they found that not every mosquito carried it or if they did not every mosquito transmitted it, and then they found out that there are two genetic conditions that give some people resistance – one being sickle cell anemia. One gene gives resistance, two give resistance and kill but late enough that the carrier can pass on the genes. Thalassemia genes in Mediterranean peoples also gives resistance Actually there are several others that I just learned about – you can read it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_resistance_to_malaria Therefore it seems that science has been busy finding the reasons for the exceptions eh?

    In fact unless there is a monetary reason, I think science is always interested in those things that don’t follow the rule so they can refine the rule, something that has been going on and on and on throughout history.

    There is a reason why evolution gave us and other species the programs to look for repeatable events and tailor our responses to them.

  • ulvfugl

    You wrote:

    ‘What a scientific method without required repeatabilty would look like, I’m not sure, it sounds a bit scary, which is perhaps why they avoid the issues.’

    Clearly it would not be scientific, but that does not make it untrue or unreal. Science, IMO, is only accounting to an aspect of the psycho-physical domain. In addition to the card experiment, I have had what turned out to be precognitive dreams and visions, on occasions where I was not attempting to generate these. They came. Two dreams in particular were concerning the actual deaths of my parents, which took place about 1 year apart and some 5 years or so after the dreams. It was only really after they died that I was able to say conclusively that the dreams were about their deaths, because of the actual details of their passing. This is the type of contradictory evidence that makes me dispute the dominant scientific postulations of at least time as a linear process.
    It is said that Awakened individuals have an ability to ‘see’ the whole life journey, even previous Karmas, and future lives of an individual they encounter, because the moment they meet is only one of many billions in the chain of being of that individual, yet to the Awakened one the local moment is only that, and the rest is also able to be seen. There is no accounting for the dominant paradigm and its insistance on its own tried and tested rules.
    We, on the other hand, do not have to believe what we are told/educated to believe. That is why it is important to speak widely to any takers what one encounters by way of extraordinary moments, which may contradict the preveiling dogma.

    It is not a competition, but a great opportunity to find out what is real.
    That has always been my motivation, but not exclusively so. And if one wants to know what is real, then one is going to have to give up some of the most fundamental precepts of common knowledge.

    We have no real idea what this place is or where it is or what or who we really are. The effects of known world parameters regarding the natural climatic systems are modeled and appear to be running into greenhouse. However, we have so many presumptions underlying what this world is, that we may not fully understand the functioning of it . Of course we don’t in any exact details, and yes we have ice core records and tree rings, and have a degree of certainty that on the evidence, and the theoretical underpinnings of science, that the planet is FUBARing very fast.

    If the earlier Gravitational model of the Universe’ is not a complete picture, as suggested by the new movement called the Plasm field dynamics postulates, depicted in the following link titled:

    “Thunderbolts of the Gods”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zixnWeE8A

    then what we describe as our Sun, may be a locus of energy transducment from some other dimension(s) and not merely a large nuclear reactor.
    We don’t KNOW what or where this world really is.

    I’m not suggesting we ignore the ‘Data’ we now have on the planet . I’m just suggesting that we don’t know what this place is capable of because we don’t really know what we are dealing with.

    Although extinction of humans is tossed around here a lot, I would not be giving over to that way of thinking until it happens, and that is not an injunction to do nothing, or play backgammon and not do some intellegent but nevertheless unpreecedented planning, or forward thinking. Others may have a different view, which is to be expected and is I do not wish it to be otherwise in a general sense.

  • Wrong. My culture taught me that while fertilization created my body, God gave me a soul that goes to heaven or earth after death. I believed that for a long time even though I was never fond of the idea of an afterlife, good or bad. I am very counter cultural to think that humans don’t have a soul, that everything I am is part of my physical body.

    Wrong ? This isn’t a black/white, right/wrong, box ticking exercise, is it ? We’re talking about history and culture and the development of ideas across time. There isn’t a simple right/wrong answer to matters of that degree of complexity. I mean, aren’t we a little more intelligent and sophisticated than the standard tv quiz ? How can there be a right/wrong answer to say ‘Why did the American war of independence occur ?’

    Which suggests why we are talking across each other. Your view wouldn’t be at all counter cultural in UK, which has been called a post-religious soceity. Belief in souls and afterlife, etc, respect for traditional orthodox religions generally, has been a minority viewpoint during my lifetime.

    If there is a god it is either powerless or evil. A god with the power of creation and the power to act in people’s lives is proven evil by the state of the world. A god without those powers is irrelevant.

    Yeah, but that’s a Mickey Mouse caricature, a strawman. I’m not attempting to defend the ludicrous ‘Big Daddy with a beard and flowing robes in the sky’ stupidity, am I. I mean, anybody who clings to that Santa Claus notion is seriously deluded, IMO. My conception of God is nothing like the concept of God that you are rejecting, which I also reject.

    Descartes by the way not only supported the idea that we have a soul, he knew where it lodged in our body
    “Descartes and the Pineal Gland

    The pineal gland is a tiny organ in the center of the brain that played an important role in Descartes’ philosophy. He regarded it as the principal seat of the soul and the place in which all our thoughts are formed. In this entry, we discuss Descartes’ views concerning the pineal gland. We also put them into a historical context by describing the main theories about the functions of the pineal gland that were proposed before and after his time.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/

    Yes, i know all that.

  • ulvfugl you wrote “I think this is irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make. If it had not been for Descartes, there wouldn’t have been any science of the kind we’ve had for the last few centuries.”

    I hardly think that any one person is so vital. History books like to attribute ideas to one person as it keeps them short. This gives one the impression that without that one person we would never have had a certain idea or method.

    Well, I suppose that’s debatable, although i don’t agree with you. Big revolutionary ideas can often be traced to an origin in an individual mind at a specific time and place.

    per wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History
    “The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents describe empirical methods in astronomy,[97] mathematics,[98] and medicine.[99] The ancient Greek philosopher Thales in the 6th century BC refused to accept supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena, proclaiming that every event had a natural cause. The development of deductive reasoning by Plato was an important step towards the scientific method. Empiricism seems to have been formalized by Aristotle, who believed that universal truths could be reached via induction…..
    The modern scientific method crystallized no later than in the 17th and 18th centuries. In his work Novum Organum (1620) — a reference to Aristotle’s Organon — Francis Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism.[104] Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for a scientific method’s guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse on Method. The writings of Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes are considered critical in the historical development of the modern scientific method, as are those of John Stuart Mill.[105]”

    Yes, i know all that.

    One of the things that pushed Darwin to finally publish was the fact that Russell Wallace was about to publish per wiki on Wallace “He is best known for independently proposing a theory of evolution due to natural selection that prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own theory.”

    Not just Wallace. Lots of people had been discussing related ideas for ages.

    Descartes certainly deserves credit. I am a great fan of the scientific method (which has not yet discovered a soul- pineal gland or anywhere else) but certainly reject his Cartesian Dualism which is what most people refer to when they talk about being a supporter of Descartes.

    They have not discovered a soul, because they are looking for the wrong effing thing in the wrong effing place, because they don’t have a clue, they just follow the junk that’s been taught to them by the previous lot of dogmatic ‘theologians of science’ ! 🙂

    from wiki on Dualism “The first significant argument against dualism came from Thomas Hobbes’s (1588–1679) materialist critique of the human person. Hobbes argues that all of human experience comes from biological processes contained within the body (see: The Leviathan[7]). In response to Hobbes, the French Philosopher Rene Descartes (1596–1650) developed Cartesian Dualism, which posits that there is a divisible, mechanical body and an indivisible, immaterial mind which interact with one another. The body perceives external inputs and the awareness of them comes from the soul. The point of interaction between the two are at the pineal gland in the brain.[8]“

    Yes, i know all that too 🙂

    http://psychistorian.wordpress.com/2008/09/

    see ‘Psyche and Purpose’… “These issues will loom large for Descartes, arguably the most influential philosopher-psychologist of all.”

  • ulvfugl has there ever been a case of someone dropping off a tall building and flying away unless he has a glider?

    Okay, try a different example. 99 people get cured by a drug, one dies a dramatic death writhing in agony. Which do you investigate, as being important ?

    Or, in practical terms, the scientific adviser tells the farmers to put such and such on their crops. 99 fields thrive, one turns all black and dies.

    According to many scientists, the 1% is dismissed, inexplicable, a shrug of the shoulders. But a REAL scientist would want to know WHY, what’s really going on, that might explain the anomaly.

    The scientific method of repeat-ability is written into our genomes and those of animals. That is what the Pavolov’s dog experiment was all about. Bring food when you ring a bell and soon the dogs distinguish a repeatable event and start salivating with on the ring of the bell. Children only stand up under a specific table a few times before they recognize that the repeatable event of hitting their head is telling them something about their height relative to the height of the table. If we didn’t have such a program written in our genome we would be in deep trouble. If we kept sticking our hand into fire because maybe once it wouldn’t burn we would probably in the end loose the hand.

    No, I completely reject that, the scientific method is a formal investigative methodology, that’s been developed and refined over the last couple of centuries, and I don’t see that paragraph as having any bearing whatsoever.

    Many things in the world are quite complex so that attaching cause and effect can be difficult. If one human gets malaria from a bite from a mosquito and another does not, we can ignore the one who does not. But science found out first that mosquitoes carry the malaria germ and that it was not breathing swamp water that caused malaria. Then they found that not every mosquito carried it or if they did not every mosquito transmitted it, and then they found out that there are two genetic conditions that give some people resistance – one being sickle cell anemia. One gene gives resistance, two give resistance and kill but late enough that the carrier can pass on the genes. Thalassemia genes in Mediterranean peoples also gives resistance Actually there are several others that I just learned about – you can read it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_resistance_to_malaria Therefore it seems that science has been busy finding the reasons for the exceptions eh?

    Yes, sometimes, good scientists do good science. I applaud that. I’m a fan of good science and good scientists.

    In fact unless there is a monetary reason, I think science is always interested in those things that don’t follow the rule so they can refine the rule, something that has been going on and on and on throughout history.

    Yes, I just wish it were so. Unfortunately, science has been corrupted and perverted, in the interests of power and money ( Monsanto ) and a great many scientists are poorly taught, know absolutely nothing about the philosophy behind science, and adhere to a dogmatic ideology called scientism, which is not science or scientific, at all, it’s an ignorant prejudice, like racism.

    There is a reason why evolution gave us and other species the programs to look for repeatable events and tailor our responses to them.

    Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with why repeatability is a requirement of the scientific method !

  • Robin thanks for the link about the Arctic. I was rather attached to having lots of ice in the Arctic but apparently will have to become non-attached

    If any are attached to GMO foods don’t bother watching this film (available free until Sept. 22). But if you are considering detaching from GMOs this will probably help
    http://geneticroulettemovie.com/

  • Ulvfugl of course science has been corrupted which I was I posted the above link to genetic roulette the exposure of one of the worst offenders.

    We were programmed to repeatability because that is the way the world works, science for the same.

    Okay, try a different example. 99 people get cured by a drug, one dies a dramatic death writhing in agony. Which do you investigate, as being important
    Of course you investigate the dramatic death as being important. Did the nurse give the wrong drug. Was the drug contaminated. While he was being treated did someone poison him. Does the drug have a negative interaction with certain people.

    Fava beans are fatal to people who have a certain genetic type, typically of Mediterranean extraction. In fact science has investigated this and found that “Hemolytic anemia is another condition which may cause problems for G6PD deficient individuals. An anemic response can be induced in affected individuals by certain oxidative drugs, fava beans, or infections (Beutler, 1994).” http://rialto.com/g6pd/clinical.htm

    Apparently things we think can effect the chemicals in the body so that placebos work in a surprising number or cases. I fully expect that our brains if we have positive beliefs of outcomes they create chemicals that help heal us. It would be nice if this were investigated so we could take better advantage of the self healing ability we have. We of course self heal many things such as cuts and insect bites so self healing is clearly a function our body can employ. The placebo effect doesn’t need drugs, of course prayer if one believes works too to access that self healing property. And it can work the other way – a voodoo curse can result in self annihilation.

    There is a cult of people in the mountain areas of the US who believe per the Bible that they can handle poisonous snakes and not die. They handle them as a proof of their faith. Some die when bit, some don’t. Science has shown that the snakes don’t always release the poison or don’t release a full dose every time. I suspect that the person in charge of the snakes may milk them before the snake handling ceremony. Recently a veteran preacher died of a snake bite. I think a scientific explanation of how much poison was released and the age of the man indicating his body had less resistance to any poison is a far better explanation than that after all these years his faith slipped.

    I don’t trust all science because scientists are humans and are influenced by their own beliefs despite attempts to reduce bias in scientific experiments. Further they usually need funding which is why no one wants to challenge GMOs or Fluoride in our water. A few scientists have. But the scientific method is a refinement of our genetic programs for investigating the world and works pretty damn well. In fact they have been able to change the world so significantly that they are about to extinct humans. But that condemnation doesn’t mean that repeatability of experiments is a false way to gain knowledge.

  • Ozman..

    “‘What a scientific method without required repeatabilty would look like, I’m not sure, it sounds a bit scary, which is perhaps why they avoid the issues.’

    Clearly it would not be scientific, but that does not make it untrue or unreal. Science, IMO, is only accounting to an aspect of the psycho-physical domain. In… etc “

    I think it can be scientific. Science has faced other extremely baffling problems that couldn’t be approached by conventional methodology.

    I mean, it’s fundamentally the quest for truth, for insight, for understanding. Take a parallel from the law. Okay, you’ve got a witch, accused of cursing people and making them ill. So you throw her in the pond, and if she’s innocent she floats and if she’s guilty, she drowns. Sorted.

    Or you torture someone until they admit whatever it is that you want them to admit.

    But then some smart person sits down and scratches their head and ponders the logic, the fairness. Is this the BEST method to discover ‘truth’ ?

    Scientific orthodoxy, as taught in many schools and universities, is incredibly crude and narrow and far away from the fundamental principles. I mean, for example, it’s geared to some successful money making product or patented invention. That’s goddam commerce, that has NOTHING to do with pure science, it’s a corruption. Or, in medical schools, I read that doctors were given ONE HOUR on how nutrition effects health. Because the courses are designed to suit Big Pharma and Big Food industries interests, not about happy healthy people…

    There’s immense amounts of anecdotal evidence for all kinds of weirdness, that science cannot explain, and which most scientists are frightened to even comment on, because they’ll be ridiculed by their colleagues. There’s a fashion in these things. When I was a kid, being vegetarian, or doing yoga, meant you were a serious kook, a crank, some loose screws rattling around in your head, so it was better to keep your mouth shut, whilst being gay was a criminal offence that meant violent assault or years in prison. Things have changed.

    Science is a project, strictly defined by the rules of investigation, but, just as with law, it would be possible to say, okay, these kinds of cases cannot be resolved by our conventional procedures, so we’ll invent a sub-department with a variation of our regular rules, and see where that takes us… Charles Tart is good on this stuff…

    http://noetic.org/directory/person/charles-tart/

  • Ulvfugl of course science has been corrupted which I was I posted the above link to genetic roulette the exposure of one of the worst offenders.

    Good. We agree.

    We were programmed to repeatability because that is the way the world works, science for the same.

    Wrong ! You’re making a wholly unwarranted assumption, for one thing. Who says ‘that’s the way the world works’ ? It’s the job of science to discover how the world works, and to assume a priori that you already know, is NOT scientific.

    Also, you’re confusing to entirely separate matters. We all perceive the world in particular ways and can make common sense assumptions. But science has shown, over and over and over again, that our common sense assumptions are completely wrong. Many scientific discoveries are strikingly counter-intuitive.

    Okay, try a different example. 99 people get cured by a drug, one dies a dramatic death writhing in agony. Which do you investigate, as being important
    Of course you investigate the dramatic death as being important. Did the nurse give the wrong drug. Was the drug contaminated. While he was being treated did someone poison him. Does the drug have a negative interaction with certain people.

    Fava beans are fatal to people who have a certain genetic type, typically of Mediterranean extraction. In fact science has investigated this and found that “Hemolytic anemia is another condition which may cause problems for G6PD deficient individuals. An anemic response can be induced in affected individuals by certain oxidative drugs, fava beans, or infections (Beutler, 1994).” http://rialto.com/g6pd/clinical.htm

    Sure. I know that. So how come this attitude does not prevail right across the whole of science ? Just mention homeopathy or astrology or acupuncture or chi or God, and yer standard scientist starts ranting and foaming at the mouth and all that disciplined rationality evaporates 🙂

    Apparently things we think can effect the chemicals in the body so that placebos work in a surprising number or cases. I fully expect that our brains if we have positive beliefs of outcomes they create chemicals that help heal us. It would be nice if this were investigated so we could take better advantage of the self healing ability we have. We of course self heal many things such as cuts and insect bites so self healing is clearly a function our body can employ. The placebo effect doesn’t need drugs, of course prayer if one believes works too to access that self healing property. And it can work the other way – a voodoo curse can result in self annihilation.

    yes, indeed.

    There is a cult of people in the mountain areas of the US who believe per the Bible that they can handle poisonous snakes and not die. They handle them as a proof of their faith. Some die when bit, some don’t. Science has shown that the snakes don’t always release the poison or don’t release a full dose every time. I suspect that the person in charge of the snakes may milk them before the snake handling ceremony. Recently a veteran preacher died of a snake bite. I think a scientific explanation of how much poison was released and the age of the man indicating his body had less resistance to any poison is a far better explanation than that after all these years his faith slipped.

    Yes, I posted a video of that on my blog a few days ago. I do think it is cruel to the snakes, and think it should be banned on those grounds. I think the intense experience of perceiving one’s self being close to death, produces all kinds of powerful chemical changes, making for altered sates of consciousness and ecstasies.

    I don’t trust all science because scientists are humans and are influenced by their own beliefs despite attempts to reduce bias in scientific experiments. Further they usually need funding which is why no one wants to challenge GMOs or Fluoride in our water. A few scientists have.

    yes, like so much that is/was good, it gets corrupted by shitty people for selfish financial advantage

    But the scientific method is a refinement of our genetic programs for investigating the world and works pretty damn well.
    In fact they have been able to change the world so significantly that they are about to extinct humans. But that condemnation doesn’t mean that repeatability of experiments is a false way to gain knowledge.

    I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED it is a false way to gain knowledge !

    It’s fine as far as it goes, it’s an essential part of the scientific method, we need reliable results, checked and cross-checked independently, full transparent procedures, etc. All that is FINE.

    However, it doesn’t get us anywhere, IF there’s a class of phenomena which, for some inexplicable reason, is not amenable to repetition.

    To rule out the possibility, a priori that there might be such a class of phenomena is not just unscientific, it’s absurdly dumb.

    I mean, my dog will do some amazing things for me. She’d NEVER do them for anyone else. So nobody else could ‘repeat the experiment’. And she’d never do them if someone else was present, because she’s not accustomed to strangers being around, so she’d be completely distracted by their presence.

    So, if I wanted to demonstrate to the world, to science, what these remarkable behaviours were, I’d have to devise a cunning methodology, that excluded the normal requirements for independent verification and witnessing. That could, of course, be achieved, with a bit of ingenuity, say, with long distance photo recording, or whatever.

  • Kathy C

    I accept that you appear to see Scientific evidence and assumptions as real. I respect your view, but I do not share your forward loading justification that the reasons for all aparently anomalous examples that ‘appear’ to contradict Scientific principles are merely undiscovered complexities that work out down the track to validate Scientific postulates:

    ” Many things in the world are quite complex so that attaching cause and effect can be difficult….. Therefore it seems that science has been busy finding the reasons for the exceptions eh? ”

    There are examples as you point out that do turn out to originate in thr complexities of Scietific principles, like Malaria, as you post. However, that is no universal proof, merely a presumption of it.

    As I have previously posted Scientific evidence is limited to verifyable measurable phenomena that is only percievable and acceptable to Sensation and Thinking.

    I will grant that I cannot normally percieve x-rays, but something we call x-rays exist. I pose that that is because our biological evolution was not tuned to percieve it for it has insignificant selective effect with respect to our behaviour. However, we have devised a tool to percieve x-rays and to measure them. I am taking these kinds of examples to be extensions of the Sensation function, like extensions of our senses, with respect to a wider perceptive toolkit for the wider electromagnetic spectrum.
    The apparently subjective Feeling and Intuitive functions of consciousness are another type of perception, and evidence of reality. But a self authenticating subset/component of reality.

    Another example of an anomylous event that contradicts present Scientific principles is below:

    In 1990 while travelling in Pakinstan, I entered our land cruiser in the early morning, and as I sat in the seat I usually sat in I had a vision of glass shattering over my face and body. It was a surprise, but I was not hurt, nor cut nor covered in blood in the vision, and it was only a few seconds of impression. I did mention it to my two companions, but only to say I had a strange moment happen. They were busy with final packing at the front of the vehicle, and eager to get moving. The moment passed to discuss it in greater detail. We drove off.

    Later that day we were invovled in a side swipe collision with a local bus. Both vehicles swerved too close to the centre of the road, and swiped each other. The ‘Jerry’ cans and sand ladders were ripped off our vehicle, and the side of the bus was damaged – a bus passanger had some minor cuts to his leg. The rear side window of our vehicle shattered and I was sprayed with small fragments of the glass, just as I had encountered in my vision, some 6 hour previous. When I made the connection to my companions they understood what my earlier comments were about, and we had a good talk that evening around our campfire.

    With respect, how are these facts going to be made intelligable by some future complexity revealing Scientific explainations? Knowing of an event hours, or days or years before it occurs is not Scientifically possible, if one discounts the case of prior awareness affecting the events, which in my examples are not in effect.
    I just can’t see Science getting to the point of explaining these facts, and still being Science.

    IMO it is more important to understand what is Real, and what is the Truth than to believe there is any method by which it can be known.

    IMO it is because of the historical context that prevailed prior to the struggle to accept Scientific principles that the advocates of Science insist on describing the ‘Scientific Method’ as a way of determining reality. It is not that IMO, but it is a way of establishing a theory of reality, or a complex of coherent series of theories of reality, and IMO that is not reality.

    That context I allude to was one where the type of evidence for reality then, was akin to what is depicted in Henry Miller’s work ‘The Crucible’. All one needed to do was to get testomony of an event and it was accepted by Power if it suited them. Intellegent individuals must have been outraged, but still powerless to stop it. Science was ‘needed’ to bring those Sensation and Thinking functions to bare on the observable world, but as is the case often, the baby was thrown out with the bath water to shore up the validity of the new model of reality. As we know historically with the adoption by dominant cultural institutions, and the formation of new ones, like ‘The Royal Society of London’,(Founded in November 1660), as the Scientific view was taken up, consciousness was no longer verifyable. Individuals attempted to account for it, but by degrees there was less and less evidence for it acceptable to Scienific experimentation. The body was explainable, and to some extent a mind was posited, but no evidence for the said mind exists. How could one validate a mind? ‘I think therefor I am’?… Seems enough, but only to quasi-validate an individual’s existance as a priority over a fading diety. In that context the European Judeo-Christian relationship generally prevailing between Humans and the Christian Deity involved deep feelings, a communion of both exstatic joy and rapture, and pain and suffering.(yeah.. well, go figure, I didn’t make it up) When the Deity could not be validated by Scientific means, it receeded in importance to many, and so the validation for the personal feeling life of individuals, in a new scientific universal Newtonian cosmology receeded too.

    And so we have now ‘devolved’ to the presumption that consciousness is an effect of the body-mind, and not the other way round. We are asked to accept that conciousness is ‘the result’ of a sophisticated assemblage of ameno acids that can self replicate etc etc. Say it long enough and people won’t even feel anymore – and then depression, as a self correcting means to bring feeling back into consciousness, will become the dominant experience of many who do not understand what went wrong. And then all Science can do is medicate, and the capitalists profit from the non-validated but soooooo exploitable suffering.

    I think this is why suffering is always a problem for Science, because it is never directly validated by Science, yet to the suffering individual, it is all the evidence one needs to validate one’s own conscious reality.

    The ‘success’ that chemists, physicists, and engineers have had via the Scientific Method to account for and manipulate aspects of the physical world/universe, which have resulted in a far more comfortable life for the ‘developed’ nations, than other ‘undeveloped’ nations, has mistakenly led very many modern people to accept the central presumptions of that earlier Newtonian Scientific model. That comfort and relative high privelage, ( a personal chariot? …for almost everyone…?), has also led almost as many to stop wanting to understand Quantum physics and what it means about what may be real, because the main sufferings of life have been assuaged, in that view.

    But now we are in a position to see that physical sufferings like starvation and diseases of poverty are only the obvious physical components of lasting happiness and fulfillment. We are also in the position now of observing what the powerful complex of a Scientific model of reality and the profit motive can do to a planet in some relatively brief 15,000 years.

    “I suffer, therefore, I am motivated to know why.” That is why my conception of “I”, has changed over the years.

  • I agree with much of what you say there, Ozman, but I’d take a different take.

    Firstly, if science and reason are so marvellous, how come they have enabled us to trash the planet in a couple of centuries since the Enlightenment ? I suggest that that means there’s something seriously wrong somewhere, we survived hundreds of thousands of years previously, without trashing the planet.

    So, my take is this. We have right brain and left brain, almost like to separate people in one body. We have mythos and logos, two different ways of knowing.

    If we want to return to sanity, we must learn to honour and respect both of these ways of knowing, they have equal value, both are essential for us to be complete human beings.

  • Ulvfugl “I respect your view, but I do not share your forward loading justification that the reasons for all aparently anomalous examples that ‘appear’ to contradict Scientific principles are merely undiscovered complexities that work out down the track to validate Scientific postulates:”

    And that is about the end of our discussion because we are both at the point of beliefs that cannot be proven. I do think the track record of Science is better than the track record of magic, religion, and all the various other non-scientific disciplines when it comes to understanding how the world works – which given the power it has give us humans is not necessarily a good thing..

    As for your vision that came true, maybe it was real but it has been discovered that our brain lies to “us”. People see an event, later are told there was a cat in the scene, later report that the scene included a cat even though it didn’t have a cat in it.

    Michael S. Gazzaniga in working with split brain patients (corpus callosum which connects the two sides of the brain is cut to help prevent seizures) and was able to show some examples of the brain making up lies on the fly.
    http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/morris4/medialib/readings/split.html
    People with temporal lobe seizures often have “god” experiences that can sound like St. Paul’s conversion experience.
    All sorts of interesting stuff coming out of neuroscience these days. I find it fascinating.
    At any rate maybe your vision was a backdated memory that your brain convinced you was real….just tell about some childhood memory as you remember it to a sibling who was in the event and you may well find two different memories. Both will feel theirs is real. In your sort of system I suppose both could be real since laws of science don’t always apply.

    Any rate I haven’t convinced you, you haven’t convinced me, but I hope at least you understand that in no way do I ascribe to Cartesian Dualism.

  • Kathy, I did not say that, the quote in your last comment is from Ozman.

  • Btw, I certainly do not suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, and the sort of experiences that I have had are nothing like those described by Gazzinga, they are rather more like the experiences described in the buddhist, hindu and taoist literature, that Robin Datta has mentioned.

    I practice zazen. It changes the brain. For the better.

  • Ulvfugl, Or, in medical schools, I read that doctors were given ONE HOUR on how nutrition effects health.

    I know that the quote I’ve pulled out wasn’t your point, but I thought I’d pipe in anyway. In my medical school, big pharma was banned from talking to students or entering the campus. And, we routinely discussed how nutrition affects health during the first two years (not so much when we started on the wards and were working with older doctors). Admittedly, I am a more recent graduate of medical school than the other doctors who comment here, so my experience might be different from theirs, but you can’t really learn to practice medicine these days without nutrition being a big part of it, in the face of an obesity/diabetes/heart disease epidemic.

  • An update to my local version of collapse: I posted a few days ago mentioning that our internet had been down for a week – and then didn’t post anything else. That’s because it went down again. And the power has been going on and off as well.

    The first internet outage was a lightening strike to some tower. Since then, there’s no explanation. The power has been going off and on, sometimes for an hour, sometimes for a few minutes, but for several days it’s been multiple times during the day.

    I’m at my office now where the power and internet are running fine – for now. I came in on a Sunday because I was craving a little internet time. Egads! Learning to cope with out electricity and internet is not going to be easy!

  • You might like the author Philip Wylie’s masterpieces, “A Generation of Vipers,” and “The Magic Animal.” His work is only for the morally brave, fyi.

    Blessings 🙂

  • Yes, well, I’ve met thousands of those guys and those Storms, and I find both stereotypes equally frustrating and tedious.

    The matter is easily resolved, it’s been done, no need anymore for that absurd polarisation. It was sorted by the ancient Greeks, more than 2000 years ago, mythos and logos, and more recently by Iain McGilchrist, right brain and left brain.

    http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/

    The left brain/logos guy says to the fair maiden :

    ” I wonder if you’d consider letting me impregnate you
    with a sample of my semen, because I am genetically
    programmed to reproduce and pass on my chromosomes
    to future generations, I’ll stimulate your erotogenic regions
    and if you’re ovulating it’s possible we may jointly produce
    an embryo which will carry our conjoined characteristics… ”

    The right brain/mythos guy says to the fair maiden :

    “Shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day?
    Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
    Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
    And Summer’s lease hath all too short a date:
    Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
    And oft’ is his gold complexion dimm’d;
    And every fair from fair sometime declines,
    By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d:
    But thy eternal Summer shall not fade
    Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
    Nor shall Death brag thou wanderest in his shade,
    When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
    So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
    So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.”

    Which guy does the fair maiden choose ? 🙂

  • Some links to diseases associated with climate change (and on the increase here)

    http://www.alternet.org/environment/5-diseases-move-north-america-thanks-climate-change

    this one is world-wide:
    http://www.promedmail.org/?p=2400:1000:

  • ulvfugl – sorry I confused you and ozman.

  • That’s ok Kathy, I think we took it as far as it wanted to go 🙂

  • Tom and all

    I found this link on the website Tom posted ‘This one is world wide’ at alternet.org it is titled:

    “What You Need to Know About a Worldwide Corporate Power Grab of Enormous Proportions”

    http://www.alternet.org/environment/what-you-need-know-about-worldwide-corporate-power-grab-enormous-proportions?page=0%2C1

    A quote:

    “As international trade negotiators gathered this week at a posh golf resort in rural Virginia to hammer out details of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), they sought to project an image of inclusion and receptivity to public input. In reality, this high-stakes global corporate pact, now in its 14th round of discussions, is heavily guarded by paramilitary teams with machine guns and helicopters as it is developed behind closed doors under a dangerous and unprecedented veil of secrecy….
    environment Rainforest Action Network / By Laurel Sutherlin 47 COMMENTS What You Need to Know About a Worldwide Corporate Power Grab of Enormous Proportions
    The corporate cabal behind a new trade agreement including Cargill, Pfizer, Nike and WalMart, has done an exceptional job of maintaining an almost total lack of transparency as they literally design the future we will all inhabit.
    September 11, 2012 |

    As international trade negotiators gathered this week at a posh golf resort in rural Virginia to hammer out details of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), they sought to project an image of inclusion and receptivity to public input. In reality, this high-stakes global corporate pact, now in its 14th round of discussions, is heavily guarded by paramilitary teams with machine guns and helicopters as it is developed behind closed doors under a dangerous and unprecedented veil of secrecy.

    What the hell is the TPP, you may ask? While it is among the largest and potentially most important ‘free trade’ agreements the world has ever seen, one can hardly be blamed for not being familiar with it yet. The corporate cabal behind it, including names like Cargill, Pfizer, Nike and WalMart, has done an exceptional job of maintaining an almost total lack of transparency as they literally design the future we will all inhabit.

    While 600 corporate lobbyists have been granted access and input on the draft texts from the beginning, even high-ranking members of Congress have been denied access to the most basic content of what US negotiators are proposing in our names.

    Thankfully, draft texts of the proposal have appeared on Wikileaks and the website of Citizen’s Trade Campaign . It is difficult to overstate the potential implications on the lives of people around the world if anything like the agreement in these leaked documents were to be implemented with the force of law.

    The TPP is called a ‘trade agreement,’ but in actuality it is a long-dreamed-of template for implementing a binding system of global corporate governance as bold as anything the world’s wealthiest elite has attempted before. Of the 26 chapters under negotiation, only a few have to do directly with trade. The other chapters enshrine new rights and privileges for major corporations while weakening the power of nation states to oppose them. The TPP essentially proposes to establish a parallel system of justice where companies can sue countries in a tribunal of judges composed of unaccountable international trade lawyers with little to no process for appeal.

    This wild bastardization of the concept of justice endangers everything from affordable medicines, internet freedoms and intellectual property rights to democratically enacted labor laws and environmental protections. And that’s not to mention the massive outsourcing of middle class jobs from the US to countries like Vietnam and Brunei.

    This isn’t just a bad trade agreement, it’s a wish list of the 1%—a worldwide corporate power grab of enormous proportions.”

    Looks like it all just keeps getting worse…

  • Diamond Sutra – A New Translation by Alex Johnson Chapter 14:

    “Because if they continue to hold onto arbitrary conceptions as to their own selfhood, they will be holding onto something that is non-existent. It is the same with all arbitrary conceptions of other selves, living beings, or a universal self. These are all expressions of non-existent things. Buddhas are Buddhas because they have been able to discard all arbitrary conceptions of form and phenomena, they have transcended all perceptions, and have penetrated the illusion of all forms.”

    Looking outward to the phenomenal world offers an infinitude of possibilities and ramifications without end. 

  • Amen to that !

  • I don’t think that the world, or rather, the biosphere, needs more enlightened buddhas. It can take a decade or two of training and practice to find buddhist enlightenment. We don’t have a decade or two for that luxury.

    Without a viable biosphere, there will be no people, and no opportunity for any potential buddhas to seek enlightenment.

    Diamond Sutra says : “Does the Buddha have the eyes of love and compassion for all sentient beings?” Subhuti agreed and said, “Lord, you love all sentient life.”

    Okay, well, give up the selfish personal quest for enlightenment, do it as a hobby, and work instead on behalf of all sentient life, fight for the biosphere and against the forces that are destroying it. That’s the sort of agenda that Deep Green Resistance, Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, Earth First ! and similar folks espouse.

    Someone above mentioned the dire state of US fisheries. From my perspective, the whole USA social system is terminally dysfunctional and a grave threat to all life on Earth, but the EU is almost as bad…

    I mean, overfishing has left fewer than 100 adult cod in the North Sea and so what do the Members of the European Parliament do ?

    They vote 349 to 303 to reject measures proposed by the European Commission to conserve fish stocks.

    That’s not responsible, rational, adult behaviour. I don’t know the exact reason for this fucking insanity, whether it is corruption, commercial pressure, dirty deals behind the scenes, or whatever, but these people need some serious education… to put it mildly….

  • The problem is the right brain has completely overpowered the left side when it comes to macro issues like, infinite growth on a finite planet, human rights vs earth rights, overpopulation, degradation of the environment etc. Left brain influence has been crowded out by a phenomenon called ‘over-socialization’.

    Right brain influence needs to be limited to micro issues like human relationships etc. Emotions have no place where macro decisions are concerned.

    I am convinced it is ‘over-socialization’ that has put us in the mess we are in.

    All this anthropocentric activity angers me, but also saddens me.

  • Have you read McGilchrist, Craig Moodie ?

  • A Refutation of Scientism

  • “The universe in which men pass their lives is the creation of what Indian philosophy calls Nama-Rupa, Name and Form. Reality is a continuum, a fathomlessly mysterious and infinite Something, whose outward aspect is what we call Matter and whose inwardness is what we call Mind. Language is a device for taking the mystery out of Reality and making it amenable to human comprehension and manipulation. Acculturated man breaks up the continuum, attaches labels to a few of the fragments, projects the labels into the outside world and thus creates for himself an all-too-human universe of separate objects, each of which is merely the embodiment of a name, a particular illustration of some traditional abstraction. What we perceive takes on the pattern of the conceptual lattice through which it has been filtered. Pure receptivity is difficult because man’s normal waking consciousness is always culturally conditioned. But normal waking consciousness, as William James pointed out many years ago, “is but one type of consciousness, while all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these forms of consciousness disregarded.”

    Aldous Huxley, 1963

    http://www.psychedelic-library.org/huxcultr.htm

  • “Because if they continue to hold onto arbitrary conceptions as to their own selfhood, they will be holding onto something that is non-existent. It is the same with all arbitrary conceptions of other selves, living beings, or a universal self. These are all expressions of non-existent things. Buddhas are Buddhas because they have been able to discard all arbitrary conceptions of form and phenomena, they have transcended all perceptions, and have penetrated the illusion of all forms.”

    Looking outward to the phenomenal world offers an infinitude of possibilities and ramifications without end.

    Robin, IMO, when the Buddha speaks of these various things as being non-existent, he’s talking about our mental labels, the model inside our minds that we build up, via our education and culture, which is ultimately illusory.

    That doesn’t mean the ‘things’ do not exist. It means that, as Huxley says above, everything is ultimately fathomless mystery.

    We are forced to attach labels and to distinguish separate items, because otherwise we cannot speak and communicate, but by doing so, we construct an artificial world, a veil, and easily forget that the map is not the territory.

    Science attempts to make ever-better maps of the territory, but I do not believe that there can ever be an understanding why ‘something’ exists, rather than ‘nothing’. A description is not an explanation. Someone quoted Borges recently, who poses the matter most eloquently :

    “In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters.
    In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.”
    – Jorge Luis Borges, “On Exactitude in Science”

  • ulvfugl, if I may interject, that example is unfair.

    Scientists understand that science and love are completely different “domains of human thought.” The scientist would never actually talk like that to the fair maiden, so your example is a straw man only meant to make the poet look better.

  • ulvfugl

    Which guy does the fair maiden choose ?

    Is this a trick question? Without knowledge of their respective bank balances it is, of course, impossible to predict who the fair maiden will choose.

    More seriously (slightly), are you arguing for rejection of the scientific method because it makes one more attractive to women?

  • Librarian, thanks for the comment upon my quirky comparisom, which was never intended to offend or impugn either scientists or poets, merely to illustrate the two contrasting modes of thought, literal truths and poetic truths, and yes, it was unfair, because most poets cannot match that quality and proficiency of seductive poesy, let alone most scientists… 😉

    The bottom line is that it is not an either/or, we need both, we cannot help having both, both are ‘us’. What we all need to understand however, is how to apply these markedly different domains appropriately, confusion on this issue abounds, I am attempting to clarify, Iain McGilchrist, mentioned above, does a far better job than I can…

  • Yorchichan, I have never, never, ever argued for rejection of the scientific method, on any grounds whatsoever….

  • “Activist” and “Author”, Derrik Jenson puts up some pertinent and contrasting value systems regarding the other life forms and the environment in which we all live. Call it left and right brain, call it functions as I am want to, it is bleedingly obvious that ‘Resource Managment’, as a term used in local, state, and national political and civil discourse is linguistically positing living systems and their immediate habitat and geographical home as economic entities only. This is the type of language manipulation George Orwell warned about in the mid 20th Century.
    The multinationals have lawyered up long ago, and the game there is largly lost, unless younger generations can mobilise to refute the management speak that dominates civil and economic activity and discourse.
    I will have to state clearly that Science as a discipline that regularly relies on written documentation and publication has NO POSSIBLE MEANS to communicate the VALUE of life forms and the habitat systems and geographical physical systems lived in/on, with the exception of an economic one. Science has been manged itself to serve industry and financial gain, otherwise we would be at pains to educate schoolkids about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Plinciple, and quantum physics, because these tell us we know nothing of what and where we are, nor even in we are moving in ‘space’, or what space is. TPTB are content to let people stay in the Newtonian age, because that serves the economic status quo. Life however, is a great mystery, and is of the highest value, no matter what form it takes.

    QED we are in this situation now. I mean Guy himself has qualifications in what he calls ‘Range Science’, which I believe he reports is a grand term for managing Cattle ecosystems in the main.

    The 1994 World Trade Organisation has proved to be the wedge that now lets corporations ‘develop underground resources’ in land and countries world-wide, circumventing local national environmental laws that are there to protect those habitat and environments. For example, coal seem gas, Uranium, and many other destructive mining activities.
    Extinctions could easily be treated with the same criminality as war crimes.
    The monster will not stop by itself, yet.

  • I should clarify, Guy probably has other qualifications too.

  • Non-attachment is a buddhist technical term, it does not mean what you think it means, M Bama. Your vantage point is one of ignorance.

    Buddhism is a rigorous philosophical analysis of the causes of suffering. The base of suffering is attachment. Why do people seek attachment ? Because they feel separated, alienated.

    Buddhist enlightenment brings the realisation that there is no separation, therefore no one who desires attachment, and nothing to be attached to.

    You do not understand any of this.

    “According to the Buddhist point of view, nonattachment is exactly the opposite of separation. You need two things in order to have attachment: the thing you’re attaching to, and the person who’s attaching. In nonattachment, on the other hand, there’s unity. There’s unity because there’s nothing to attach to. If you have unified with the whole universe, there’s nothing outside of you, so the notion of attachment becomes absurd. Who will attach to what ?” – John Daido Loori

    Because we think we have intrinsic existence within our skin, and what’s outside our skin is “everything else,” that we go through life grabbing for one thing after another to make us feel safe, or to make us happy. This means we are constantly frustrated, hurt and disappointed, so we suffer. Once enlightenment is found, this cause of suffering vanishes. The meditation practices provide means to attain total bliss and serenity, independent of external factors, so there is no need to dream about getting a new car or a new dress or a chocolate cake or bottle of whisky or a pay rise or a lottery win to make us ‘happy’, as a temporary alleviation of alienation and suffering.

  • MB – “And here I thought Evangelists were pernicious proselytizers. The adherents of Eastern Religions appear to be in lockstep, and I have to say, for those who claim to be non-attached, it sure looks and smells like attached from my vantage point.”

    Ah we have found a point of agreement 🙂

    Re the loss of fresh water from melting ice, the warm weather should take up some of that and drop it in the form of floods here and not drop it there. So we loose the reservoir and get too much rain or too little. We had no idea what a gem of a climate we were living in for the last 10,000 years did we?

  • ulvfugl

    Yorchichan, I have never, never, ever argued for rejection of the scientific method, on any grounds whatsoever….

    Only joking; I know exactly the point you were making and I agree entirely. Anyone who can watch “Dead Poet’s Society” without a tear in their eye at the end has no heart. 😉

  • ozman, your example of correctly guessing 32 out of 52 cards correctly re. their color is hardly as impressive as u seem to think. on average one would expect to get 1/2 correct, or 26. so u got 32. this is a bit unusual, but not highly so. if u tried the same thing 100 times, chances are sometimes u would only get 20 right, and on average u would get very close to 26, or 1/2.

    at the risk of alienating u and others, it is my opinion that intelligence, or lack thereof, plays a huge role in belief in magic or the paranormal. intelligent sheople come to the conclusion, sooner or later, that dogmatic beliefs based on faith or superstition or whatever always prove to be invalid, upon sufficient study. anomalies which defy understanding aren’t proof that the scientific method is invalid. they are merely proof of the limits of human perception and intelligence.

  • craig moodie, i suspect your assertion that ‘over-socialization’ is the culprit behind the insanity that grips civilization is just another way of perceiving that civilized society is hierarchical, and that the powerful have learned to depend upon the promotion of dogmatism, superstition, ‘faith’, etc., as a way of keeping the less powerful under their control.

  • “…anomalies which defy understanding aren’t proof that the scientific method is invalid. they are merely proof of the limits of human perception and intelligence”.

    Did anybody here ever say that ‘anomalies which defy understanding aren’t proof that the scientific method is invalid’ ?

    I certainly did not. I want the anomalies to be understood. I fully approve of the scientific method. What I want is for the scientific method to be applied in a way that the anomalies can be understood.

  • I suspect that Craig Moodie may have been referring to Ted K.’s position, as outlined in his manifesto, where he had quite a lot to say about over-socialization. That was where I first came upon the term, anyway.

    Here’s a link to someone discussing it, fwiw.

    http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/scientific-challenges-to-over-socialization/

  • Sorry, correction, in previous comment, I meant to say ‘ARE proof…’

  • the virgin terry

    I actually made a mistake in the original posr. I did correct it however. I wrote 32 reds and 32 black, but I meant 26 reds and 26 black correct. This equivelent to 100% correct at guessig red/black. Pehaps it is best to express it as all reds and all blacks were chosen correctly. What are the odds?

    Sorry for the initial error, seems to take some of the uniquness from the tale.

    Also I never proposed I believed in Magic, and even Faith. Like I’ve osted before we need all our functions and faculties to get through this life and grow.

  • so now u are claiming to have gotten 52 guesses in a row correct in which the odds of any one guess being wrong is 50%. by pure statistical probability, the odds of this happening are one divided by 2 to the 51st power. this would be extremely unusual and suggestive of some kind of paranormal power. i can see why u were disbelieved. as someone said previously, the magician randi has put out a substantial reward as enticement to anyone who can, under scientifically controlled circumstances, do something like what u’ve claimed. no one has. ’nuff said.

  • correction: the odds are 1 divided by 2 to the 52nd power, or 2 times times 2…52 times over. someone with a calculator can figure the odds. 2 to the tenth power is a bit more than 1,000,000. in other words, the odds of getting 10 guesses in a row correct with 50% chance of error is less than 1 in a million.

  • correction. instead of a million, 2 to the tenth is 1,024. i think 2 to the 20th is over 1,000,000, 2 to the 30th is over 1,000,000,000, etc. thus 2 to the 52nd is in excess of 1,000,000,000,000,000. i think that’s known as a quadrillion. more commonly referred to as a gazillion, or a number that defies human imagination/comprehension.

  • “the magician randi has put out a substantial reward as enticement to anyone who can, under scientifically controlled circumstances, do something like what u’ve claimed. no one has. ’nuff said.”

    No, not enough said. Randi is a disreputable clown, a proven liar, amongst other unattractive charactersitics, and the inherent assumption that a large sum of money decides ‘truth’ is ridiculous. Why the hell would anyone want to have anything to do with Randi ? So they could get on tv and become a celebrity moron like all the rest ?

    What I want is serious scientific research by serious people. Dean Radin and Charles Tart, for example. People with a bit of integrity, self-respect and dignity.

  • And here I thought Evangelists were pernicious proselytizers. The adherents of Eastern Religions appear to be in lockstep,

    In very many cases, that is indeed true. Especially when the emphasis is on a person, a method or an institution. Completing the analogy would entail telling people that every person regardless of affiliation is a Christ, a Father of Christ, an Allah, etc. However, few venture into such territory.

    There is no room for proselytisation when there is no salvation and no saviour, no one but oneself to save oneself, and one has to travel one’s path by oneself and alone, notwithstanding the helpful guidance of those who may have travelled on that path before. 

    Perception requires a modification of the mind corresponding to external sensory inputs or internal thoughts; there is no perception without the illumination of this modification by consciousness. When the modifications cease, the consciousness rests in itself. Indeed, all concepts such as “mind”, “thought” “brain”, etc. depend on and exist in consciousness.

  • 2 raised to the 52nd power is 4,503,599,627,370,496

    Yes, I have a calculator 🙂

  • “Completing the analogy would entail telling people that every person regardless of affiliation is a Christ, a Father of Christ, an Allah, etc. However, few venture into such territory.

    Hahahahaha, I like that, Robin, see, you can speak from your own wisdom, not just recycle texts from old wisdom masters ! 😉

    Indeed, it would entail telling people that each person, regardless of affiliation, is a son of God, daughter of God, brother, sister, of God, mother of God, father of God, indeed, further, each person IS God, or indeed, even more radical and interesting, of Goddess….

    But all this depends entirely upon what that word ‘God’ means, in the mind of the reader… so perhaps it is best to abandon that word, it comes loaded with too much accumulated junk, and speak of Brahma or Mahavairocana or Tao or Dainichi Nyorai, or somesuch ? 😉

  • So, Ozman, if the odds appear so improbable, the next step is not, as Kathy and TRT claim, to reject the experience as ‘impossible’, or flounder around as Yorchichan did, looking for ‘tricks of the mind’, the next logical scientific step, it to say that there’s something very weird going on, that we do not understand, and think hard as to how it could be investigated, so that we canunderstand it….

    I could quite scores, hundreds, of experiences I have had that do not find explanation within the standard orthodox scientific paradigm of ‘how the world works’, but I don’t need to quite my personal data, because we already have millions and millions of records from throughout history, from all cultures, as anecdotal evidence.

    Just because it is very difficult to evaluate this stuff scientifically, doesn’t mean it is impossible. To reject the data without serious investigation is mere laziness, presumption and blind prejudice, the very thing that science is supposed to be against.

  • Sorry, typos, quite = QUOTE, the letters have worn off most of my keypad….

  • So long and thanks for all the herring
    Or
    The non-attachment of Cod

    A survey of catches at European ports has found that fishermen did not catch a single cod over the age of 13 last year.
    The findings raise concerns for future stocks of cod, which become more fertile as they age. The fish can live as long as 25 years and grow to 6ft.
    Researchers warned a lower life expectancy meant a lower birth rate and a faster decline.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9546004/Just-100-cod-left-in-North-Sea.html

  • Yes, Kathy, I noted that way back, earlier this morning, and the response of the MEP, to vote against proposed measures to conserve fish stocks ! Effing perverse idiots !

    Non-attachment in the realm of attachments

  • Did anyone else get a kick out of OzMan’s accidental attribution of “The Crucible” to Henry Miller? (It was Arthur, not Henry). Not trying to make fun of OzMan, I just found the juxtaposition of “The Tropic of Cancer” and a bunch of Puritans pretty funny.

    Interestingly, I was recently in a conversation about the very topic of the impossibility of science working with events that are unique, random, or otherwise not easily repeatable. I understand why someone would not believe that OzMan really did predict all the cards’ colors, but at the same time, you can’t prove that it didn’t happen either. As a thought experiment, imagine if you were there and saw it yourself. What then? Most of us would come up with some explanation to reconcile it with our way of thinking even if we could not prove the explanation either.

    If I remember correctly, in the recent book “The Wave” by Susan Casey, scientists who studied the ocean did not accept the existence of rogue waves (giant singular waves that seem to appear out of nowhere) until recently. The reason was that they were too rare and hard to verify.

  • That’s fun, James S., yes, the rogue wave….

    I was once in a bar quietly drinking, there were six lads playing pool, and suddenly an uproar…. so i began to pay attention, and asked them what the problem was.

    There was some anger and much protest and shouting. So, I told them all to shut up and calm down for a minute. Then I asked each one what they had actually seen happen, which coloured ball had done what, etc…. and each one had a different account of what had happened !

    One ‘reality’ ? Or six irreconcilable ‘realities’ ?

    Science has to assume/presume that there is one objective reality, otherwise, scientific method cannot proceed. However, that is, always has been, an unwarranted assumption, unproven, unprovable, an article of faith….

  • the existence of god can’t be disproved, just like many incredible claims can’t be disproved. however, whenever an incredible claim is put to the test of science (can it be repeated?), and it fails the test, imo one can’t be blamed for not believing. imo our species would be in much better shape than it is currently if skepticism of all dogmas and incredible claims was encouraged, considered normal. instead we have a world in which ‘authorities’ make it a crime or a ‘sin’ to criticize or satirize their nonsense, and being intelligently skeptical opens one to criticism of being narrow minded, of worshipping at the altar of science, as if science and dogmatic faith are essentially equivalent.

    mystery exists. many aspects of nature are so surreal as to defy human comprehension. perhaps this is unfortunate, for it makes the work of liars and con artists, profiting from human ignorance and gullibility, much easier. many are sincerely deluded, to the point where it’s no longer clear where delusion ends and deceit begins. take for example someone in position of power, like the president of the usa, when he talks about getting the economy back on the track of ‘growth’, is he deluded or being deceitful? does he understand that he lives in a finite world in which there are limits to ‘growth’? who knows? does it matter in the end? i think not. the only thing that matters is that he is wrong. for whatever reason, he is being dogmatic, unreasonable. unfortunately, dogmatism, anti-intellectualism, is quite popular nowadays. indeed, this has been the case for who knows how long? this imo is why our species has probably done itself in. promoting dogmatism proved valuable to the maintenance of social control or hierarchy, and now it rages like an inferno out of control, and gaia is suffering, paying the price, for the insanity of it’s most ‘intelligent’ species.

  • Please join me in supporting Peter in his quest to return home

  • ulvfugl sorry for double posting the cod story. Sometimes I get confused where I read things and sometimes I miss reading them here and read them somewhere else as was the case this time.

    I can’t see that this has been posted but apologies if someone has posted it already
    Its us or the Nukes – by David Swanson

    President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor was about to wake him up in the middle of the night to inform the President that 220 Soviet nuclear missiles were headed our way, when he learned that someone had stuck a game tape into the computer by mistake.

    Three years later a Soviet Lieutenant Colonel acted out the same scene, with the computer glitch on his side this time. Then in 1984 another U.S. computer glitch led to the quick decision to park an armored car on top of a missile silo to prevent the start of the apocalypse. And again in 1995, the Soviet Union almost responded to a U.S. nuclear attack that proved to be a real missile, but one with a weather satellite rather than a nuke. One Pentagon report documents 563 nuclear mistakes, malfunctions, and false alarms over the years — so far.
    rest at http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-us-or-the-nukes/

    Sometimes when one reads such stuff one thinks perhaps there is a god protecting us, or maybe aliens.

    He concludes “The nukes have got to go, or we do. This planet’s not big enough for both.” not realizing I guess about the 400+ Fukushima’s waiting for us if we don’t dismantle the nuclear power plants before the grid goes down.

  • Full story at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/4000-marines-headed-middle-east-part-peleliu-amphibious-group-dispatch
    snippet below
    4000 Marines Headed To Middle East As Part Of Peleliu Amphibious Group Dispatch
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/17/2012 14:04 -0400

    Afghanistan Australia Iran Middle East

    Up until now, the LHD 7 Iwo Jima Big-Deck Amphibious Warfare ship was all alone in the Arabian Sea, patiently awaiting orders to liberate this or that middle east country of their oil reserves. This is no longer the case: launching today in general direction – Middle East – for a brand new 7 month engagement, is the LHA 1 Peleliu Amphibious Ready Group, consisting of the amphibious assault ship, the USS Peleliu which consists of 4000 marines. LHA 1 also comprises of the amphibious transport dock USS Green Bay and the dock landing ship USS Rushmore. Also deploying Monday is the Marine Corps’ 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and elements of Fleet Surgical Team 1, Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 23, Assault Craft Units 1 and 5, and Beach Master Unit 1. And as we reported previously, the middle east veteran – the CVN 74 Stennis aircraft carrier – was providently already on its way. In other words, in about 2 weeks, the Middle east will be the focal point of 3 aircraft carriers, 2 amphibious assault forces, and who knows how many “developed” world armadas, all hell bent on securing that one extra bit of Middle East oil, under the guise of spreading democracy and liberating the local people who “hate America’s for its freedom.”

  • ozman, if u possess paranormal abilities that allow for the performance of incredible feats like ‘divining’ a correct answer to 52 questions in a row in which a sherson lacking your exceptional divination ability has a built in 50% failure rate, and whose odds of achieving such a feat are 4 gazillion to one (lol)…

    why aren’t u famous? why haven’t u proven to the world that james randi is wrong when he asserts there’s no such thing as ‘esp’ (extra sensory perception), and offers something like ten thousand american dollars to anyone who can prove him wrong? is your esp some mysterious force beyond your ability to summon at will, so as to satisfy the demands of the ‘show me’ skeptic with ten thousand bucks on the line, in the spirit of scientific curiosity. humanity would be stunned.

    just for the fun of it, ozman, why don’t u try applying your exceptional divination ability to prophecy? imagine in that exceptional mind of yours what our world will be like 10, 20, 30 50 100 years into the future? perhaps if your vision is detailed and powerful enough, it will bring u universal fame as a prophet. a prophet of doom, i suspect. if u divine any other future, your cred is shred here. it’s already a bit frayed about the edges, imo.

  • such an absurd existence, with a twist of cruelty, this world.
    divinity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
    what sentient being in it’s right mind would claim responsibility for this madness?
    is god a cruel madman?
    maybe the cruel madman portrayed in parts of the bible advocating genocide, rape, torture, slavery?
    it seems in surreality anything’s possible.

  • the letters have worn off most of my keypad….

    The letters don’t wear off Das Keyboard.

    & sorry about screwing up the HTML syntax. 

  • “the existence of god can’t be disproved, just like many incredible claims can’t be disproved. however, whenever an incredible claim is put to the test of science (can it be repeated?), and it fails the test, imo one can’t be blamed for not believing. imo our species would be in much better shape than it is currently if skepticism of all dogmas and incredible claims was encouraged, considered normal. instead we have a world in which ‘authorities’ make it a crime or a ‘sin’ to criticize or satirize their nonsense, and being intelligently skeptical opens one to criticism of being narrow minded, of worshipping at the altar of science, as if science and dogmatic faith are essentially equivalent.

    mystery exists. many aspects of nature are so surreal as to defy human comprehension. perhaps this is unfortunate, for it makes the work of liars and con artists, profiting from human ignorance and gullibility, much easier. many are sincerely deluded, to the point where it’s no longer clear where delusion ends and deceit begins. take for example someone in position of power, like the president of the usa, when he talks about getting the economy back on the track of ‘growth’, is he deluded or being deceitful? does he understand that he lives in a finite world in which there are limits to ‘growth’? who knows? does it matter in the end? i think not. the only thing that matters is that he is wrong. for whatever reason, he is being dogmatic, unreasonable. unfortunately, dogmatism, anti-intellectualism, is quite popular nowadays. indeed, this has been the case for who knows how long? this imo is why our species has probably done itself in. promoting dogmatism proved valuable to the maintenance of social control or hierarchy, and now it rages like an inferno out of control, and gaia is suffering, paying the price, for the insanity of it’s most ‘intelligent’ species.

    Tvt, I agree with much of what you say there. It’s obvious that you are smart enough to understand all that, then please be smart enough to apply the same critical thinking to your own thinking !

    Surely that’s possible ? There are much more nuanced, sophisticated, intellectually advanced, understandings of the matters you point to, if you take the trouble to learn about them and work at it. Educate yourself !

  • Thanks for the tip, Robin, I googled and found them, looking at them now.