Doomstead Diner Menu => Geopolitics => Topic started by: John of Wallan on April 07, 2017, 08:51:04 AM

Title: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 07, 2017, 08:51:04 AM
I am deeply saddened by mans ability and desire to harm his fellow man in more heart wrenching and cruel ways. I personally have seen nothing but the best of times relative to much of  humanity, having lived in a free, safe, peaceful and prosperous society, and yet I fear the worst of times lay ahead for all mankind. We have indeed seen some of the best of humanity and a lot of the the worst of humanity on display this week.

It is already hard enough as a parent to come to the rational conclusion that your children will inherit a much worse future than I inherited from my parent, let alone think of the possibility of seeing one of then reduced to a shattered bloody pulp by the meat grinder of war we all too often embrace.

I am not a religious person; I am an atheist who sees no evidence of a gods; yet I daily wish for intervention from any source either natural or supernatural to this most horrendous self inflicted malady of man, and indeed all life on earth. Were I a believer  I would pray for peace. I am not, so I sit here late at night at my computer and it hope for sanity instead.

On the eve of another deadly day I ask all of the people who read this to tell me what I can do to help untie the knots of war we seem to be tying. Every day I see the politicians pulling on the rope making the knots tighter, urged on by the ignorant, injured or profiteers of such wars.
It is not right.
It is not just.
It is not fair.
It is unethical and immoral to condone, encourage or ignore.
War is planned by the old, directed by the middle aged and paid for by the young with their lives.
Anyone who has seen first hand the demonic vision that is modern warfare would do all in their power to to extinguish the mere spark of a conflict before it could ignite the tinder and kindle the flames of war.

Mankind needs to find a way to peace. I am an ex-soldier who is lucky enough to not ever have to put my military training in to practice. Please believe me, we do no want war.

We need peace.

Edwin said it better than I ever could.

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives
I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker
Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away
Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way
Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it
War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it
Nothing

JOW
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 07, 2017, 09:05:27 AM
Missiles, worse than bombs. Impersonal, indiscriminate megadeath. There is no excuse. I too am very saddened. It didn't take much to get Trump turned around on the USMIC.

I think he never was anti-war. He merely was willing to say what someone told him to say. He doesn't really seem to have any values of his own, at all. A very dangerous man, at a very dangerous time.

We are all now at some risk of having a missile land in our living room. Actions always have consequences. The US has been so insulated from the wars of its own making that most people here think of war like it was a video game. It will be different when some pissed-off foreign despot manages to blow up a city or two here.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 07, 2017, 09:06:59 AM
I'll post this to the Blog tomorrow.

Besides being vocal and hoping/praying that the jackasses running the show either get some CFS or are struck down by lightning, there isn't a whole lot that J6P can do.  Collapse leads to War, like Cancer leads to Death.

It's happened at least twice before, though not on the global scale.  Still, we are here now, so collapse doesn't necessarily mean the end of all Homo Sap life on Earth.

The Fall of Babylon the Great

1AfterRev. 17:1, 7 these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, Ezek. 43:2and the earth was illuminated with his glory. 2And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, Is. 13:19; 21:9; Jer. 51:8; Rev. 14:8“Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and Is. 13:21; 34:11, 13–15; Jer. 50:39; 51:37; Zeph. 2:14has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and Is. 14:23a cage for every unclean and hated bird! 3For all the nations Jer. 51:7; Rev. 14:8have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, Is. 47:15and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.”
4And I heard another voice from heaven saying, Is. 48:20“Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5Gen. 18:20For her sins have reached to heaven, and Rev. 16:19God has remembered her iniquities. 6Ps. 137:8; Jer. 50:15, 29Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; Rev. 14:10in the cup which she has mixed, Rev. 16:19mix double for her. 7Ezek. 28:2–8In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as Is. 47:7, 8; Zeph. 2:15queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ 8Therefore her plagues will come Is. 47:9; Jer. 50:31; Rev. 18:10in one day—death and mourning and famine. And Rev. 17:16she will be utterly burned with fire, Jer. 50:34; Heb. 10:31; Rev. 11:17for strong is the Lord God who judges her.

The World Mourns Babylon’s Fall

9Ezek. 26:16; 27:35“The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her Jer. 50:46; Rev. 17:2; 18:3will weep and lament for her, Rev. 19:3when they see the smoke of her burning, 10standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, Is. 21:9‘Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! Rev. 18:17, 19For in one hour your judgment has come.’
11“And Ezek. 27:27–34the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore: 12Ezek. 27:12–22; Rev. 17:4merchandise of gold and silver, precious stones and pearls, fine linen and purple, silk and scarlet, every kind of citron wood, every kind of object of ivory, every kind of object of most precious wood, bronze, iron, and marble; 13and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and 1 Chr. 5:21; Ezek. 27:13souls of men. 14The fruit that your soul longed for has gone from you, and all the things which are rich and splendid have gone from you, and you shall find them no more at all. 15The merchants of these things, who became rich by her, will stand at a distance for fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16and saying, ‘Alas, alas, Rev. 17:18that great city Rev. 17:4that was clothed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls! 17Rev. 18:10For in one hour such great riches came to nothing.’ Is. 23:14Every shipmaster, all who travel by ship, sailors, and as many as trade on the sea, stood at a distance 18Ezek. 27:30and cried out when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, Rev. 13:4‘What is like this great city?’
19Josh. 7:6; Job 2:12; Lam. 2:10; Ezek. 27:30“They threw dust on their heads and cried out, weeping and wailing, and saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city, in which all who had ships on the sea became rich by her wealth! Rev. 18:8For in one hour she is made desolate.’
20Is. 44:23; 49:13; Jer. 51:48; Rev. 12:12“Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets, for Luke 11:49; Rev. 19:2God has avenged you on her!”

Finality of Babylon’s Fall

21Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, Jer. 51:63, 64“Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and Rev. 12:8; 16:20shall not be found anymore. 22Eccl. 12:4; Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; Rev. 14:1–3The sound of harpists, musicians, flutists, and trumpeters shall not be heard in you anymore. No craftsman of any craft shall be found in you anymore, and the sound of a millstone shall not be heard in you anymore. 23Jer. 25:10The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, Jer. 7:34; 16:9and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For Is. 23:8; Rev. 6:15; 18:3your merchants were the great men of the earth, 2 Kin. 9:22for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived. 24And Rev. 16:6; 17:6in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who Jer. 51:49were slain on the earth.”
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 07, 2017, 10:39:45 AM
J6P has the ability to "NOT FEED THE BEAST" ...... en masse, will it happen ? Only time will tell.

Title: Intergenerational Singers for Peace on Earth
Post by: RE on April 07, 2017, 11:33:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/b_ReMi7tVWA

I'm old enough to remember seeing Bing and David sing this together live (well, on tape really, on TV)

RE
Title: Re: Intergenerational Singers for Peace on Earth
Post by: azozeo on April 07, 2017, 03:01:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/b_ReMi7tVWA

I'm old enough to remember seeing Bing and David sing this together live (well, on tape really, on TV)

RE

Me too....  :icon_mrgreen:
Thanx for posting. I guess we are ALL SO FUCKING DONE WITH WAR !!!!!
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 07, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Thanks fellas.
Makes me feel a little less despairing that others share my fears and sadness.

Mankind learns from mistakes and then forgets the lessons within a generation or 2. Eventually the mistakes will get so big there will be no one left to learn the lesson.

Peace on earth and goodwill to all men should be universal regardless of colour, creed, religion, country or politics.

JOW
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 07, 2017, 07:36:28 PM
Eventually the mistakes will get so big there will be no one only a few Diners left standing to learn the lesson.

Fixed that for you.  :icon_sunny:

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 07, 2017, 07:48:33 PM
bomb science

JOW
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
bomb science

JOW

They'll run out of bombs before we run out of people.

RE
Title: We Need Peace
Post by: Guest Blogger on April 08, 2017, 04:10:43 AM


youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of John of Wallan



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on The Doomstead Diner on March 8, 2017






Discuss this article at the Geopolitics Table inside the Diner



I am deeply saddened by mans ability and desire to harm his fellow man in more heart wrenching and cruel ways. I personally have seen nothing but the best of times relative to much of  humanity, having lived in a free, safe, peaceful and prosperous society, and yet I fear the worst of times lay ahead for all mankind. We have indeed seen some of the best of humanity and a lot of the the worst of humanity on display this week.



It is already hard enough as a parent to come to the rational conclusion that your children will inherit a much worse future than I inherited from my parent, let alone think of the possibility of seeing one of then reduced to a shattered bloody pulp by the meat grinder of war we all too often embrace.



I am not a religious person; I am an atheist who sees no evidence of a gods; yet I daily wish for intervention from any source either natural or supernatural to this most horrendous self inflicted malady of man, and indeed all life on earth. Were I a believer  I would pray for peace. I am not, so I sit here late at night at my computer and it hope for sanity instead.



On the eve of another deadly day I ask all of the people who read this to tell me what I can do to help untie the knots of war we seem to be tying. Every day I see the politicians pulling on the rope making the knots tighter, urged on by the ignorant, injured or profiteers of such wars.





It is not right.

It is not just.

It is not fair.

It is unethical and immoral to condone, encourage or ignore.





War is planned by the old, directed by the middle aged and paid for by the young with their lives.

Anyone who has seen first hand the demonic vision that is modern warfare would do all in their power to to extinguish the mere spark of a conflict before it could ignite the tinder and kindle the flames of war.



Mankind needs to find a way to peace. I am an ex-soldier who is lucky enough to not ever have to put my military training in to practice. Please believe me, we do no want war.



We need peace.



Edwin said it better than I ever could.



War, huh, yeah

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Uh-huh

War, huh, yeah

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise

Because it means destruction

Of innocent lives

War means tears

To thousands of mothers eyes

When their sons go to fight

And lose their lives

I said, war, huh

Good God, y'all

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Say it again

War, whoa, Lord

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing

But a heartbreaker

War, friend only to the undertaker

Ooooh, war

It's an enemy to all mankind

The point of war blows my mind

War has caused unrest

Within the younger generation

Induction then destruction

Who wants to die

Aaaaah, war-huh

Good God y'all

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Say it, say it, say it

War, huh

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Listen to me

War, huh, yeah

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Uh-huh

War, huh, yeah

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Say it again y'all

War, huh, good God

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker

War, it's got one friend

That's the undertaker

Ooooh, war, has shattered

Many a young mans dreams

Made him disabled, bitter and mean

Life is much to short and precious

To spend fighting wars these days

War can't give life

It can only take it away

Ooooh, war, huh

Good God y'all

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Say it again

War, whoa, Lord

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker

War, friend only to the undertaker

Peace, love and understanding

Tell me, is there no place for them today

They say we must fight to keep our freedom

But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

Ooooooh, war, huh

Good God y'all

What is it good for

You tell me

Say it, say it, say it, say it

War, huh

Good God y'all

What is it good for

Stand up and shout it

Nothing




Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 08, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
Quote
It is not right.
It is not just.
It is not fair.
It is unethical and immoral to condone, encourage or ignore.

Yes, we are no better than the predator animals.
Oh wait, we ARE predator animals, and not moral, ethical, fair and just animals.  Always were, always will be.  It's in our DNA, and maintained by natural selection of the fittest predator.  When a society gets rich enough that selection pressure no longer works to eliminate the non-predator genes from the gene pool, we get all civilised and invent constructs like fairness etc.  But when the selection pressure comes back because of resource limits, predator genes in the gene pool make a come back too.

Without oil and gas, and coal only harvested by hand and transported by donkey, civilisation will not be able to make a come back.

Then when the last few million humans are clinging to life as stone-aged hunter-gatherers, they will still go to war with their neighbouring tribes, killing their men, raping their women, eating their babies and burning their huts, before taking over their territory and using their resources.

Life wasn't meant to be like it is now.

(https://doomsteaddiner.net/palloy/images/Chimpanzee.snarl.jpg)
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 09, 2017, 12:25:02 AM
You are wrong.
If I as an individual sees injustice then everyone has that capacity.

If you think war is normal go to a war zone or send your children off to die in them instead of other people paying the price for your ideals.
 
Don't count me as part of your species if this is what you think being human is about.

JOW
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 09, 2017, 01:40:29 AM
I didn't say it was my ideal.  My ideal would be a truly socialist utopia where everyone is respectful of everyone else, carefully minimises their use of resources, plans the future to maximise happiness and minimise discord, and generally is fair and just to all humans and all animals, fish, birds, insects and pythons.

What I am saying is that humans, as a whole, have never been like that, and never will be.  Just as chimpanzee troupes will always hunt small monkeys in the forest canopy, humans will always go to war, steal resources, and commandeer other species to eat them.

How long is it since women got the vote in your neck of the woods?  How long since you stopped slavery?  How long since homosexuals got equality?  How long since cows and pigs and chickens got a decent life before being eaten?  How long since African and Asian humans got a fair go? 

Your opinions on what is fair and just only surfaced a century ago or less, after a million years of history, and even now you would lose a vote on whether it is OK to eat animals.  It is not the natural order of things.  Everywhere else in the animal kingdom it is predator and prey, with only the fittest surviving to raise offspring.  When you look at the way humans have lived for 99.99% of their time, they were just the same.  For the last 100 years it has been different for us in the First World, but only at the expense of animals' habitat and other humans in the Third World.

It is impossible to justify all this "flowering of humanity" without recognising that fossil fuels made it all possible, so it follows that when they are no longer extractable, and the trees have all been chopped down and burnt, then we will go back to being a small population of hunter-gatherers, with barely a day's worth of food in store against hard times.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 04:05:17 AM

It is impossible to justify all this "flowering of humanity" without recognising that fossil fuels made it all possible, so it follows that when they are no longer extractable, and the trees have all been chopped down and burnt, then we will go back to being a small population of hunter-gatherers, with barely a day's worth of food in store against hard times.

I don't think that does follow logically.

There is a certain point in the population size when Homo Saps go from being primarily competitive to primarily cooperative in order to ensure species survival.  This is true of all pack animal predators and herd animals as well.

For Homo Sap, that number is probably close to Dunbar's Number of 150 or so.  Pretty standard Tribal size in the H-G era, although there were bigger ones and smaller ones.

Within the tribe, even pre-civilization, most of the qualities we revere as morally positive were upheld.  Generosity, caring, loving others and of course the Golden Rule, "Do Unto others as you would have others Do Unto you."

Between tribes competing for the land and resources necessary for survival, those qualities are not respected of course.  The other tribe is "other" or "outworlder" and gets no more respect than the animals you hunt for your daily sustenance.  Competition for resources is what forces one tribe to view another one in this way.

Once the population drops low enough though and the tribes are separated by sufficient distance, the cooperative nature of the pack animal will reassert itself.

Granted, the population has to drop substantially for that to occur.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 09, 2017, 06:34:53 AM
Quote
Within the tribe, even pre-civilization, most of the qualities we revere as morally positive were upheld.  Generosity, caring, lovng others and of course the Golden Rule, "Do Unto others as you would have others Do Unto you."

Between tribes competing for the land and resources necessary for survival, those qualities are not respected of course.  The other tribe is "other" or "outworlder" and gets no more respect than the animals you hunt for your daily sustenance.  Competition for resources is what forces one tribe to view another one in this way.

That is precisely what I said.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 06:47:22 AM
Quote
Within the tribe, even pre-civilization, most of the qualities we revere as morally positive were upheld.  Generosity, caring, lovng others and of course the Golden Rule, "Do Unto others as you would have others Do Unto you."

Between tribes competing for the land and resources necessary for survival, those qualities are not respected of course.  The other tribe is "other" or "outworlder" and gets no more respect than the animals you hunt for your daily sustenance.  Competition for resources is what forces one tribe to view another one in this way.

That is precisely what I said.

No it isn't.  You made the case that we're only ruled by barbarism, but we're not.  Cooperation is also a feature of our animal makeup, and the social rules we have are an evolution of that.  You also used an image of an Ape showing it's teeth to demonstrate how barbaric we can be.  You did not drop on an image of apes grooming each other, as they also do.  I will drop on such an image as a rebuttal to yours.

(http://www.chimpsanctuarynw.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/web-tacugama-chimps-groom.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 09, 2017, 07:21:53 AM
I surely didn't have to point out altruism exists within family groups.  Introducing fresh blood (DNA) into chimpanzee families isn't done by grooming the neighbouring tribe, it's done by kidnapping young females from them.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 07:37:46 AM
I surely didn't have to point out altruism exists within family groups.  Introducing fresh blood (DNA) into chimpanzee families isn't done by grooming the neighbouring tribe, it's done by kidnapping young females from them.

The group in the photo is larger than a "family".  It's a tribal grouping on Chimpanzee scale, which can number up to a few hundred.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/behav (http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/behav)

Quote
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIOR

Primate behavioral ecologists have long debated the costs and benefits of group living, but some of the factors that affect chimpanzee social structure include decreased likelihood of predation, resource defense and feeding efficiency, and higher copulatory success because of access to mates (Sakura 1994; Boesch 1996). Chimpanzees live in a fission-fusion social group consisting of a large community that includes all individuals that regularly associate with one another (up to a few hundred individuals) and smaller, temporary subgroups, or parties.

Do they do kidnapping from other groups?  Do they get in fights with other groups?  Of COURSE they do!  That's part of the survival game, but it doesn't make them barbaric.  They are generally quite nice to each other as long as there is enough FOOD for everybody.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 09, 2017, 03:19:12 PM
I realise you are only arguing for the sake of arguing.   :evil4:

I originally used the phrase "neighbouring group", then I used "family".  Now you are redefining my use of the word "family", splitting it into "family" and "tribe".

The point is, humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees, and chimpanzees, having evolved from a common ancestor as hunter-gatherers , have their killer side, as shown by my photo.  (Soldiers are trained to snarl and shout Yaaaargh! as they rush in for the kill.)  They also have their altruistic side, as shown by your photo.  Humans have the same, not EXACTLY the same, but similar enough to say humans have a killer side.

Thus when JW says "You are wrong.  If I as an individual sees injustice then everyone has that capacity", he is refusing to recognise that humans have a killer side too.  Under sufficient interrogation, I'm sure I could find some aspect of JW's lifestyle in which he himself is not so perfect and just as he claims.  Australian society is certainly not fair and just.  The world isn't fair and just right now, it never was, and never will be. 

People see injustice but often do nothing about it, instead favouring actions that serve their personal/family/clan/tribe's interests.  "Human Rights" are an artificial construct that only rich First Worlders have.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 03:34:42 PM
I realise you are only arguing for the sake of arguing.   :evil4:

I originally used the phrase "neighbouring group", then I used "family".  Now you are redefining my use of the word "family", splitting it into "family" and "tribe".

The point is, humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees, and chimpanzees, having evolved from a common ancestor as hunter-gatherers , have their killer side, as shown by my photo.  (Soldiers are trained to snarl and shout Yaaaargh! as they rush in for the kill.)  They also have their altruistic side, as shown by your photo.  Humans have the same, not EXACTLY the same, but similar enough to say humans have a killer side.

Thus when JW says "You are wrong.  If I as an individual sees injustice then everyone has that capacity", he is refusing to recognise that humans have a killer side too.  Under sufficient interrogation, I'm sure I could find some aspect of JW's lifestyle in which he himself is not so perfect and just as he claims.  Australian society is certainly not fair and just.  The world isn't fair and just right now, it never was, and never will be. 

People see injustice but often do nothing about it, instead favouring actions that serve their personal/family/clan/tribe's interests.  "Human Rights" are an artificial construct that only rich First Worlders have.

lol.  I'm only partially arguing just for the sake of it.  The other reason is to clarify what you said originally, which really did not cover the gamut of Homo Sap motivations and behaviors, focusing too much on the"killer instinct" side.  We are basically in agreement though, and I knew that going in.

However, you yourself have some unproductive altruistic behaviors when it comes to the Pythons you share your environment with.  If you were acting as a true Animal Predator Homo Sap, you would not tolerate those motherfuckers threatening your chooks or your cat for a nano-second.

CHOP CHOP CHOP!

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 09, 2017, 05:28:12 PM
Yes, I have my altruistic behaviours when the resource pressure is not on.  If I can catch them with the snake-catcher, I do, and then I kill them.  That's what happened to the one I photographed earlier in this thread.  But if I can't, then I let them go with whatever injuries they've got - I don't know whether they die from those injuries elsewhere.

(https://doomsteaddiner.net/palloy/images/snake.catcher.jpg)

I had one in my big cage once, during the day, and it went under the litter and under the heavy mesh (3"x2"), above the small mesh (10 mm x 10 mm).  There was no way I was going after it then, so I called the snake-catcher man.  He just reached in and felt about for it until it popped its head up, and then he snatched it and slowly dragged it out while poking its tail, whereupon it wrapped itself around his arm and squeezed.  You could see his arteries almost bursting.  He got me to hold the sack open, and put the head in, and then proceeded to peel the tail off his other arm and drop the whole lot in the bag and tie it off.  He spent a few minutes massaging the life back into his arm.  He wouldn't admit he was upset by the incident, but then I suppose he has a reputation to maintain. 

That's why I don't try it when it's too difficult - self-preservation beats altruism every time.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 07:10:31 PM
Yes, I have my altruistic behaviours when the resource pressure is not on.  If I can catch them with the snake-catcher, I do, and then I kill them.  That's what happened to the one I photographed earlier in this thread.  But if I can't, then I let them go with whatever injuries they've got - I don't know whether they die from those injuries elsewhere.

I had one in my big cage once, during the day, and it went under the litter and under the heavy mesh (3"x2"), above the small mesh (10 mm x 10 mm).  There was no way I was going after it then, so I called the snake-catcher man.  He just reached in and felt about for it until it popped its head up, and then he snatched it and slowly dragged it out while poking its tail, whereupon it wrapped itself around his arm and squeezed.  You could see his arteries almost bursting.  He got me to hold the sack open, and put the head in, and then proceeded to peel the tail off his other arm and drop the whole lot in the bag and tie it off.  He spent a few minutes massaging the life back into his arm.  He wouldn't admit he was upset by the incident, but then I suppose he has a reputation to maintain. 

That's why I don't try it when it's too difficult - self-preservation beats altruism every time.

Instead of reaching in with your arm, how about grabbing it with an extended reach grabber?  They come as cheap as $7.99.

Dr. Leonards (http://www.drleonards.com/reach-grabber/43027.cfm?cm_mmc=PaidSearch-_-GooglePLA-_-FreeShip-_-43027&key=1A00227B&gclid=Cj0KEQjwt6fHBRDtm9O8xPPHq4gBEiQAdxotvPp3GMMpf2S03_yHUbJe0n_F_FeZHXScnV2Q_CCgh68aAuo_8P8HAQ)

(http://image.dhgate.com/0x0/f2/albu/g1/M01/62/01/rBVaGVV-iBSAPu38AADlTp0aiYo394.jpg)

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/aplus-seller-content-images-us-east-1/ATVPDKIKX0DER/A164XQT7IPAAIU/B00O47ILVA/YPRlzJwWTy28._UX970_TTW_.jpg)

Or how about setting a snake trap for it to crawl into?  Bait it with a live hamster.  What Python could resist?

(http://survival-mastery.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Funnel-door-wire-cage-snake-trap.jpeg)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: agelbert on April 09, 2017, 08:18:52 PM
Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.     (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220815161550.png)
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 08:27:04 PM
Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.

The point AG is that you have to achieve a balance between the two.  You can't be perfectly altruistic, at the very least for self-preservation you have to kill plants and eat them.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 09, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
That MIGHT be true, and there have been countless millions of evolutionary dead ends in the past, but it works for chimpanzees, and it worked for humans for hundreds of thousands of years. 

Maybe the discovery of how to make fire was too much of a good thing to handle. 

(https://doomsteaddiner.net/palloy/images/campfire.jpg)

Or the discovery of farming.  Or FFs.  Or too much separation from Nature.  Or lack of selection pressure.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 09:03:03 PM
That MIGHT be true, and there have been countless millions of evolutionary dead ends in the past, but it works for chimpanzees, and it worked for humans for hundreds of thousands of years. 

Maybe the discovery of how to make fire was too much of a good thing to handle. 

That's Gail Tverberg's hypothesis.

Quote
Or the discovery of farming.  Or FFs.  Or too much separation from Nature.  Or lack of selection pressure.

Farming would be the closest to my hypothesis, but I think you can farm sustainably through permaculture.

My best hypothesis is the discovery of metallurgy and ceramics, which came around the same time as the Ag revolution.  Both require copious amounts of energy, and before FF were accessed required burning down entire forests.  Thus MENA was desertified over a couple of millenia.  Just for heating and cooking, the forests replenish themselves faster than you can burn them, at least if there aren't too many of you.

RE
Title: Python Grabber Models
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 09:19:48 PM
I think this model might be best.  A nice wide mouth to grab hold of even a pretty thick Python anywhere along the length of the snake.  You don't need to slip the loop of a rope around the head or tail end.  Around $10.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/1c/6c/ee1c6c35dd2b376629a0920290fc8aad.jpg)

RE
Title: DIY Python Traps
Post by: RE on April 09, 2017, 09:42:59 PM
There are tons of models of snake trap designs (https://www.google.com/search?q=snake traps&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSraCqiZnTAhUG2WMKHUzLCjgQ_AUICSgC&biw=1920&bih=971), and most of them are EZ to DIY for practically NOTHING!

In this model, the kid puts one together from plastic bottles.  It's only big enough for a small python with a1/2" diameter or less, but you can of course easily scale up the idea. Use more bottles and a wide mouth juice bottle for the entrance.  Those bottles have 2" diameter openings. A python of that diameter is big enough to take out a chicken or a cat. Besides, catch 'em while they are kids, and you have fewer of the big motherfuckers that could endanger your chooks or cat, or even YOU someday!

Sprinkle a few of these traps around the property, and you should be pretty snake free.  Make a couple of BIG traps, and if you catch a few 10 footers or more, it could be a good source of income.  Those skins are worth good money!  At the very least, you could dice them up and feed to the chooks!

http://www.youtube.com/v/caLD8lvuNgo

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 10, 2017, 05:10:59 AM
I don't think altruism covers killing or injuring predators that feed off of your homesteads stock. I use to live trap possums and ground hogs and raccoons that were running around eating our chicken eggs and killing our chickens. I would drive them 10 miles and let them go in another wilderness. Self preservation is deeply buried in us humans. Altruism is wanting and acting on your best wishes for all life, but we have to take into account that killing is a part of what we have to deal with sometimes. It doesn't negate our best intentions for the world and others. 
  I see no altruism in the PTB. They have allowed their greed for self-protection to completely rule them. It is only that which becomes precious to them that they show any kind of gentleness. It is completely self serving, and has no regard for anyone but themselves and their cronies.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 10, 2017, 06:10:16 AM
I am not Mother Teresa... In fact Mother Teresa was not Mother Teresa, but that is another argument.
I am saddened by the cruelty we accept.

Please point out the line where I claimed to be perfect. I will retract it immediately.

If you cant see the barbarity and futility of war don't declare that it is normal and attack me as claiming to be perfect.
I am ex-military, so I actually once was willing to participate in this barbarity. Poison gas, white phos, stinger drones, suicide bombers, suicide pilots in comercial airlines, high velocity rifle rounds and cruise misiles blowing, burning, chocking and disintergrating men, women and children for profit or as revenge sickens me. This is a result of modern society and money, not the other way around. All wars are for money and power.

I see injustice in killing people for profit. Yes there is injustice in my society, as in yours. I disagree with your implying that its human nature and nothing we can do about it.

If I or my family are attacked I will defend myself as should anyone. What is going on now is not self defence. Its a business.

JOW
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 10, 2017, 08:11:40 AM
I disagree with your implying that its human nature and nothing we can do about it.

I never implied any such thing, in fact I said exactly the opposite that inherently like all pack animals Homo Saps has a cooperative nature that asserts itself in groups around the size of Dunbar's Number of 150.  I have written on many occasions how these behaviors are NOT "Human Nature" but rather the cultural outcome of the development of Agriculture, the Property Ownership system and Money.  I have used on MANY occasions the line "Money is the ROOT of all EVIL".  :evil4:

I am appalled you can so seriously misinterpret my writing.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: luciddreams on April 10, 2017, 09:11:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/0fkKnfk4k40
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 10, 2017, 09:51:16 AM
I disagree with your implying that its human nature and nothing we can do about it.

I never implied any such thing, in fact I said exactly the opposite that inherently like all pack animals Homo Saps has a cooperative nature that asserts itself in groups around the size of Dunbar's Number of 150.  I have written on many occasions how these behaviors are NOT "Human Nature" but rather the cultural outcome of the development of Agriculture, the Property Ownership system and Money.  I have used on MANY occasions the line "Money is the ROOT of all EVIL".  :evil4:

I am appalled you can so seriously misinterpret my writing.

RE


Well your close RE....

FOR THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 10, 2017, 12:01:10 PM
I disagree with your implying that its human nature and nothing we can do about it.

I never implied any such thing, in fact I said exactly the opposite that inherently like all pack animals Homo Saps has a cooperative nature that asserts itself in groups around the size of Dunbar's Number of 150.  I have written on many occasions how these behaviors are NOT "Human Nature" but rather the cultural outcome of the development of Agriculture, the Property Ownership system and Money.  I have used on MANY occasions the line "Money is the ROOT of all EVIL".  :evil4:

I am appalled you can so seriously misinterpret my writing.

RE


Well your close RE....

FOR THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil  :icon_sunny:

Sigh.  How many times have I been over this? ???  It's a distinction without a difference.  You can't love something that doesn't exist, it's only once money exists thar people can love it.  So it's the money that is at the root of the problem.

Besides that, I never said I was quoting straight from Biblical Text.  I am expressing it the way God explained it to me.  He told me whoever transcribed Jesus words got it wrong and added the love part himself.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 10, 2017, 02:01:29 PM
Take a chill pill RE. Its not all about you!
You really think you are the centre of the universe? ::)

My comments were in reply to Palloy saying I was not allowed to moralise from a flawed position, and that I was claiming not to be flawed.

The first reaction to challenging the status quo always seems to be attack, either physical wars or character assassination. Shoot the messenger is always easier than thinking and seeing things are not right.
How many times do we see whistle blowers in jails, or overthrow of governemnts who wont bow down to bullying?
A position of strength should come with moral responsibility, not responsibility for enforcing your morals. Empires always become thought police. any dissent is ridiculed then punished if it continues. Gunboat diplomacy.

Once money disappears and we go back to 1870, everyone will be too occupied staying alive to form empires and enforce their ideals and twisted ideologies on others, at least on a world scale.

I hope it does not take human extinction for wars to end as others have implied.
 :(
JOW

Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 10, 2017, 02:21:44 PM

My comments were in reply to Palloy saying I was not allowed to moralise from a flawed position, and that I was claiming not to be flawed.

That was not clear from your post.  When you make a reply in a comment stream with multiple participants, you need to be clear who you are replying to.  You should have included a quote from PY to specify you were replying to him, or at least phrased it "Palloy, I don't agree with your characterization...blah blah blah"

On other topics, yes, the Universe revolves around ME!  :icon_sunny:

(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/science/images/b/bd/Anthropocentrism-01-goog.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151227073040&path-prefix=el)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: agelbert on April 10, 2017, 03:38:01 PM
Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.

The point AG is that you have to achieve a balance between the two.  You can't be perfectly altruistic, at the very least for self-preservation you have to kill plants and eat them.

RE
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100115191314.jpeg)

No, really? Uh, RE, the last time I checked, using the verb "BEATS" in the above boast is evidence of a LACK of balance to the point of arrogant and totally unjustified ASSURANCE that conscience free predation (which is what  justifying self-preservation over altruism ALWAYS IS in practice) takes PRECEDENCE over altruism ANY TIME.

Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other?  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif)

I don't mean to replace GO in some kind of passive aggressive chain pulling exercise  ;), but you are off your meds and on an "apex predator can anything it wants" trip (AGAIN  :P).

Even Darwin said that ain't so. Now don't get your drawers in a bunch about dis ting, old man. I do agree with you that self-preservation has its place in biosphere math. BUT, as far as species perpetuation and survival is concerned, and PARTICULARLY in regard to APEX PREDATORS, individual ALTRUISM plays a FAR more important role than self-preservation. There is NO survival if those two are EQUAL TIME balanced. ONLY when altruism is the TOP TRAIT (i.e. NEVER a balance between the two  :emthup: :icon_sunny:) is species perpetuation not in jeopardy. 

Of course I know you love a good argument, so I will give you some fodder to get a real good one going here. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif)

SNIPPET from The Paradox of Altruism

Quote
Charles Darwin regarded the problem of altruism—the act of helping someone else, even if it comes at a steep personal cost—as a potentially fatal challenge to his theory of natural selection. After all, if life was such a cruel “struggle for existence,” then how could a selfless individual ever live long enough to reproduce? Why would natural selection favor a behavior that made us less likely to survive? In “The Descent of Man,” Darwin wrote, “He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature.” And yet, as Darwin knew, altruism is everywhere, a stubborn anomaly of nature. Bats feed hungry brethren; honeybees defend the hive by committing suicide with a sting; birds raise offspring that aren’t their own; humans leap onto subway tracks to save strangers. The sheer ubiquity of such behavior suggests that kindness is not a losing life strategy.

For more than a century after Darwin, altruism remained a paradox. The first glimmers of a solution arrived in a Bloomsbury pub in the early nineteen-fifties. According to legend, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane was several pints into the afternoon when he was asked how far he would go to save the life of another person. Haldane thought for a moment, and then started scribbling numbers on the back of a napkin. “I would jump into a river to save two brothers, but not one,” Haldane said. “Or to save eight cousins but not seven.” His drunken answer summarized a powerful scientific idea. Because individuals share much of their genome with close relatives, a trait will also persist if it leads to the survival of their kin. According to Haldane’s moral arithmetic (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif) , sacrificing for a family member is just a different way of promoting our own DNA.
https://www.wired.com/2012/02/the-paradox-of-altruism/ (https://www.wired.com/2012/02/the-paradox-of-altruism/)

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)

Yup, All these serious scientists have to be drunk to come up with any kind of semi-logical CFS. ::)

But it's still mostly a wild ass guess, if evolution true believers would be honest about it (which they NEVER are!). These pecker heads can't even figure out how a woodpecker evolved, but they arrogantly claim to be "logical" about some mathematical formula for altruism based on the "danger" of not passing on their glorious gene pool. GIVE ME A BREAK HERE! These FUCKS want to reduce loyalty, love and caring to some set of perceptual cues about the family jewels? ???

  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png)



Consequently, I continue to advocate that any claim to "balance" between self preservation and altruism, where altruism has the subservient position, is the MARK of an EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END. As I have said here many times to deaf ears, Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS, so I have no problem predicting the logical and well deserved extinction of dumb fucking predators that don't care for their surroundings, relatives or prey species.
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/5yjbztv.gif)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220815161550.png)
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: agelbert on April 10, 2017, 03:50:09 PM
I disagree with your implying that its human nature and nothing we can do about it.

I never implied any such thing, in fact I said exactly the opposite that inherently like all pack animals Homo Saps has a cooperative nature that asserts itself in groups around the size of Dunbar's Number of 150.  I have written on many occasions how these behaviors are NOT "Human Nature" but rather the cultural outcome of the development of Agriculture, the Property Ownership system and Money.  I have used on MANY occasions the line "Money is the ROOT of all EVIL".  :evil4:

I am appalled you can so seriously misinterpret my writing.

RE


Well you're close RE....

FOR THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil  :icon_sunny:


 :emthup:

I know RE claims it's six of one and half a dozen of another. But I don't think so. And, I'm glad to see you and I are on the same page. All that said, I hasten to add, in defense of RE (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif), that he practices a lack of LOVE for money in his life!  :emthup:  :emthup: :emthup:  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 10, 2017, 03:54:14 PM
Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other?

I never argued any such strange idea.  I just argued that the idea predation isn't part of our makeup is a canard, just as it is a canard to say we are always altruistic.  PY can make his own arguments.  Don't conflate my arguments with his please.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: agelbert on April 11, 2017, 11:03:34 AM
Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other? [/size]

I never argued any such strange idea.  I just argued that the idea predation isn't part of our makeup is a canard, just as it is a canard to say we are always altruistic.  PY can make his own arguments.  Don't conflate my arguments with his please.

RE


Believe me, I don't. You  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) have been vociferous about the God footprint on the universe (Fibonacci down to quantum level  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)) while Palloy poo poos Fibonacci because "it's not a mathematical function". Anything that stands in the way of Palloy's atheistic Darwinian religion is fodder for him to sophisticate his way around.  ;)

I am looking forward to meeting dumbstruck and sheepish Palloy on the other side. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)


Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 11, 2017, 05:47:34 PM
Quote
Palloy poo poos Fibonacci because "it's not a mathematical function".

Libellous nonsense - of course if you define "Fibonacci" as a function ( y = FIB(x) ), it IS a function, but generally the name is used to describe an infinite series:
Fib = { ..., 0, 1, ..., n = (n-2)+(n-1), ... }

Can you see "the Hand of God" in there? - I can't.

Quote
I am looking forward to meeting dumbstruck and sheepish Palloy on the other side.

Dream on.   
If it made you a nicer person by believing in "the other side", that would be OK with me, but instead it makes you a bitter old man who says incredibly stupid things, like Hess's Law is wrong, and you can turn seawater into freshwater without expending energy, and Peak Oil isn't happening.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 11, 2017, 06:00:42 PM
Quote
Palloy poo poos Fibonacci because "it's not a mathematical function".

Libellous nonsense - of course if you define "Fibonacci" as a function ( y = FIB(x) ), it IS a function, but generally the name is used to describe an infinite series:
Fib = { ..., 0, 1, ..., n = (n-2)+(n-1), ... }

Can you see "the Hand of God" in there? - I can't.

Fibonacci sequence in Nature (http://geometricon.com/the-fibonacci-in-nature/)

(http://2ff8n03drmib1b12373aauek-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/assets/images/Art/Fibronacci/nautilus%20shell.jpg)

(http://2ff8n03drmib1b12373aauek-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/assets/images/Art/Fibronacci/fibonacciSpiralALOE.jpg)

(http://geometricon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/11Fibonacci-sequence-in-nature.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 11, 2017, 06:49:03 PM
Yes, something as mathematically simple as a series where each term is the sum of the previous two terms ( tn = tn-1 + tn-2 ), tends to a ratio between adjacent terms ( tn/tn-1 ) of (1 + ⎷5)/2, which is equal to 1.61803398875...  You can prove it yourself if you want to, you don't need God's permission.

It is mathematics that turns up in Nature, not God.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 11, 2017, 07:07:20 PM
It is mathematics that turns up in Nature, not God.

What created "Nature" and the Mathematical Rules it follows?  They just popped into existence out of thin air? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 11, 2017, 07:34:53 PM
Quote
What created "Nature" and the Mathematical Rules it follows?  They just popped into existence out of thin air?

I could push the understanding of Nature back a bit, but you will only ask another question about what came before that, until eventually we get to "What came before the Big Bang?".  Or we could stop here and say "We don't really know." 

The God explanation doesn't help you to understand things any better, which is conveniently covered by "The mind of God is unknowable."  Therefore the God explanation is superfluous, and God is superfluous.  If I ever get to stand at the Pearly Gates, I will explain that to Saint Peter, and I'm sure he will understand.  Would he really want me to burn in Hell for all eternity, a God of love who chooses not to show himself?
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 11, 2017, 07:49:13 PM
It is mathematics that turns up in Nature, not God.

God can bite my sweet pink ass.

And if people want to equate "gawd" and "nature" I surely cannot stop them.

Just don't call me Shirley.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 11, 2017, 07:55:51 PM
If I ever get to stand at the Pearly Gates, I will explain that to Saint Peter, and I'm sure he will understand.  Would he really want me to burn in Hell for all eternity, a God of love who chooses not to show himself?

I'd tell Gawd "If you show me yours I'll show you mine".
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 11, 2017, 08:04:56 PM
Or we could stop here and say "We don't really know."

"We don't really know" is Agnosticism, not Atheism.  Here you are just saying its a tossup question, you're not either eliminating the possibility of the Existence of God nor are you definitively saying "God EXISTS! (and His Son was Jesus Christ...blah blah blah.)  This is fundamentally intellectual fence sitting.

This is one of the few areas Ka and I agree on actually, even though we come at it from different ways.  No, you cannot "know" in an absolute sense, all you can do is put together a philosophy which makes some CFS.  To me, it makes no CFS  for a Universe to pop into existence out of Nothingness, run by Mathematical Rules which popped out of Nothingess, which rules then applied to the physical stuff created out of Nothingness to create atoms and molecules which then somehow organized themselves up into self-replicating single cell organisms which then managed to evolve by pure random chance into higher life forms with many cells cooperating which then managed to develop Sapience to try and figure out how it all got started to begin with!  ::)

I don't know the precise "Nature" of God, although I seriously doubt it is an Old White Guy with a Beard who had a Son named Jesus Christ 2000 years ago in the deserts of MENA while leaving all the folks living on the NA & SA Continents at the time hung out to dry without the bennies of his knowledge and wisdom.  What I do know though is the probability of arriving at where we are today through a series of random events is slim and none.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 11, 2017, 09:07:29 PM
The presence of Mathematics in Nature isn't proof that God exists or doesn't exist.  What I said was it makes God superfluous as an explanation, and by Newton's Law of Crap-Cutting, 'we will not admit of anything which is unnecessary'.

From life's experiences, God as an explanation continues to be unnecessary, and I expect things to remain that way until I die, and afterwards too.

I have a nagging suspicion that Gravity doesn't follow Newton's inverse square law perfectly:
f = ( G * m1 * m2 )/r2

but has maybe a fourth power term and others in it too;
f = ( G * m1 * m2 )/(r2 - r-4 + r-6 )

such that at very small distances (like the size of an atom's electron shell's radius) there is a kink in the strength of the gravitation field, which electrons can get trapped in, forming shells.  The kinks would line up with what Quantum Mechanics calls quanta, thus making QM unnecessary.   My New Theory of Gravity then wouldn't have to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and would be the Grand Unified Theory of Lif, the Universe and Everything.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 01:17:59 AM
The presence of Mathematics in Nature isn't proof that God exists or doesn't exist.  What I said was it makes God superfluous as an explanation, and by Newton's Law of Crap-Cutting, 'we will not admit of anything which is unnecessary'.

From life's experiences, God as an explanation continues to be unnecessary, and I expect things to remain that way until I die, and afterwards too.

I disagree with that, because if you have no basis upon which to explain the order that is quite visible around us (including but not limited to mathematics), then all the rules are arbitrary.  That includes rules on distinguishing between Good & Evil, none of which are reducible to a mathematical formula.  Thus you get your moral relativism, where the claim is there IS no good or evil, what's good for me is evil for you and so forth.  On an existential level, it's like a Fiat Monetary System with no fixed standard by which to measure anything, everything floats.  It doesn't work well with money, and it doesn't work well as an explanation for existence either.

Beyond that, your claim there is no "need to know" is a fallacy.  In the corporeal sense, we have no need to know how quantum mechanics works either, we existed just  fine without that knowledge well into the 20th century.  In fact on this level we don't even need to know basic mechanics or how gravity works either, those also we got on fine without for most of our existence as Homo Saps.  But because of that last part, the Sap part, we DO have a "need to know".  It's the inherent curiousity of the species to understand how things work and seek explanations for that.  What you do is put a lid on this curiousity and say, "We can never know the answer to that, so lets just not worry about it and operate without that knowledge."

I can't put a lid on my curiousity that way, and neither can Ka.  I seek an explanation for how life began, because it doesn't make CFS to me that it just popped into existence randomly.  At the very least there needs to be a set of forces we don't grasp yet that direct this, but even if we do figure those out you're still not at the end of the trail because you haven't explained why those forces exist or where they came from.

Will those questions still be out there when you buy your ticket to the Great Beyond?  Yes, in all probability they will be, unless of course God decides to make a Cameo Appearance here at the end of the Age of Oil.  However, just because these questions are probably not answerable in our lifetimes does not mean you stop asking the questions.

In the meantime, until you do have a definitive answer, you have to make a hypothesis which makes CFS, and a random explanation for the existence of nature and the mathematical rules that govern the structures we see around us from the composition of subatomic particles like electrons an protons from quarks and gluons to the composition of atoms from electrons, protons and neutrons to the composition of molecules from all the atoms in the periodic table to the composition of cells from different molecules to the organization of cells into organs with different functions to the current final stage we are aware of for a brain to become self aware does NOT make CFS as a random event.  At least not to me anyhow.  So I posit a directing influence for this that at the very least organized it all up even if it doesn't actively take part in how it functions on a daily basis.  God may very well be like Ron Popeil on the Grand Universal scale, "Set it, and Forget it".

http://www.youtube.com/v/Nb91-j861DI

However, I keep seeking more definitive answers to these questions, and will do so until I also Buy My Ticket to the Great Beyond.

SEE YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 12, 2017, 03:22:43 AM
It's quite possible RE, that you're not fully aware of how deep the grand illusion goes.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 03:46:18 AM
It's quite possible RE, that you're not fully aware of how deep the grand illusion goes.

Of course that is possible, that is the whole point of my post FFS!  ::)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 12, 2017, 05:07:01 AM
What if the whole universe IS "god"? What it is like as it evolves has innate qualities to it. Over billions of years these qualities have become manifest in our world.  We just happened to be part of that manifestation. The seemingly miraculous intricacy that it has become is just it's nature. Instead of trying to give it names, or reasons for "being", why not involve our minds and bodies to participate in what it is now, and listen closely to what it is moving each of us to "be" and do? I think that naming and trying to give mentally imagined meaning to the great mystery is limiting each person who does this to repress the understanding that there is no answer. Relax and go along for the ride, except now that the S is HTF. If we don't die by global warming in hundred years, maybe all the religions, nationalism, egoism, greed, etc... will fade away. Who knows?
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 05:28:36 AM
What if the whole universe IS "god"?

That is Pantheism.

Quote
pan·the·ism
ˈpanTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: pantheism

    1.
    a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

I'm a Panentheist

Quote
pan·en·the·ism
paˈnenTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: panentheism

    the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.

Distinctions:

Quote
Pantheism

The word Pantheism in short, means “all is God.” This is the view that between God and the universe, there is no difference. They are one and the same thing. As a result, every person, object, animal, plant, and grain of sand is in one way or another, God.

This view is held by Hindus, Taoists, and various New Age movements.

Panentheism

In its literal form, Panentheism simply means, “all is in God.” Instead of the Pantheist belief that everything is God, in Panentheism, God is everything in the universe, but he/she/it still extends beyond it. Consequently, as the cosmos grows and its inhabitants gain more knowledge, God also grows and gains more knowledge.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: luciddreams on April 12, 2017, 06:08:11 AM
What if the whole universe IS "god"?

That is Pantheism.

Quote
pan·the·ism
ˈpanTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: pantheism

    1.
    a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

I'm a Panentheist

Quote
pan·en·the·ism
paˈnenTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: panentheism

    the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.

Distinctions:

Quote
Pantheism

The word Pantheism in short, means “all is God.” This is the view that between God and the universe, there is no difference. They are one and the same thing. As a result, every person, object, animal, plant, and grain of sand is in one way or another, God.

This view is held by Hindus, Taoists, and various New Age movements.

Panentheism

In its literal form, Panentheism simply means, “all is in God.” Instead of the Pantheist belief that everything is God, in Panentheism, God is everything in the universe, but he/she/it still extends beyond it. Consequently, as the cosmos grows and its inhabitants gain more knowledge, God also grows and gains more knowledge.

RE

That is some pretty fine and ridiculous hair splitting there.  I can't even split bamboo that thin!!! 
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 06:52:53 AM
That is some pretty fine and ridiculous hair splitting there.  I can't even split bamboo that thin!!!

Well, as you know I am a database freak and I like to get the categories defined.  :icon_mrgreen:

Philosophically though, it's actually a pretty significant difference.  In the case of the Pantheist, the Universe we are part of is EVERYTHING.  There is nothing beyond it, although there may be aspects of it we do not perceive.  For the Panentheist, this Universe is only part of a much larger system, which might include many Universes.  All of that is then subsumed into God, which is a supra-entity beyond the universes themselves.  For Pantheists, the Universe and God are one in the same thing.  That's a BIG philosophical difference.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 12, 2017, 03:38:47 PM
That is some pretty fine and ridiculous hair splitting there.  I can't even split bamboo that thin!!!

Well, as you know I am a database freak and I like to get the categories defined.  :icon_mrgreen:

Philosophically though, it's actually a pretty significant difference.  In the case of the Pantheist, the Universe we are part of is EVERYTHING.  There is nothing beyond it, although there may be aspects of it we do not perceive.  For the Panentheist, this Universe is only part of a much larger system, which might include many Universes.  All of that is then subsumed into God, which is a supra-entity beyond the universes themselves.  For Pantheists, the Universe and God are one in the same thing.  That's a BIG philosophical difference.

RE


Bravo ! Well said.

I'm currently reading, researching a group of Siberian tribes people that are
utterly astounding as to how close they live to the Earth. There clairvoyance is off the charts.
The folks living in society have absolutely no idea how deliberately maligned our species has been treated, by our own kind, no less.
The woo-woo factor isn't even necessary here.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 12, 2017, 05:49:23 PM
Quote
RE: Philosophically though, it's actually a pretty significant difference.

What? The difference you describe is whether, in two definitions of words, the construct "God" include ALL the constructs called "alternative Universes".  I can't imagine a more pressing question in a civilisation that is about to collapse.

For the record, I don't say of such questions "It doesn't matter", I say "It is a complete waste of time because there is no way you will ever think up an answer that everyone (or indeed ANYONE) will agree with.  In mathematical jargon, it is uncomputable.

Getting closer to reality, there are questions that are computable, but haven't been computed yet.  "How did life start on Earth?" is one of those. 

The Miller-Urey experiments, including more recent ones, show that from Water, Methane, Ammonia and Hydrogen (plus some energy in the form of a spark), straightforward chemistry can produce measurable amounts of Hydrogen Cyanide, Formaldehyde and Acetylene in a few minutes, and on up to complex organic molecules like amino-acids and sugars in a few weeks. 

Carbon dioxide tends to mess this up by oxidising the products unless some strongly reducing compounds like Iron are also present.  But once you have got CO and H2O, then the entire range of hydrocarbons can be produced, and all their alcohols, acids, esters and ethers by Fischer-Tropsch-like synthesis.

You try to ridicule this synthesis by calling the process "random events" or "out of nothing", but you forget that there are sextillions of molecules bumping into each other every second in every cubic centimetre of proto-atmosphere, each one being "an event" that might produce a more complex product.  So the chances of producing a more complex product might seem infinitely small, and yet quite commonly happen in the Earth's atmosphere over billions of years.

So now we have all the ingredients for building RNA and DNA, and all we are missing is a catalyst to make the monomers combine into polymers.  Crystalline products like clays have been suggested for this.

The Genetic Code of modern life shows clear signs of having been optimised from 64 down to 20 triplet combinations of 4 bases (A, T, G, C), so we should expect that the original Genetic Code was simpler than it is now. Also some primitive lifeforms have a fifth base (U), and they are still living and reproducing OK, so we should expect that the original Genetic Code had more bases, and has been subsequently optimised too.  DNA, being a DOUBLE helix, is much more robust than single-stranded RNA, but is likely to have been a subsequent optimisation too.

So that puts paid to the criticism that DNA is way too complicated to have formed naturally - it is, but the original Genetic Code was simpler.  It hasn't been worked out yet what EXACTLY the first Code was, or what EXACTLY the catalyst was, but this problem is definitely solvable. 

And when it is solved, it will have been proved that Life did indeed start by chemistry alone from simple chemicals known to have existed in Earth's early atmosphere.  And then the "God" explanation will have to take another step backwards, because it will be superfluous to explaining Life.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 05:59:20 PM
You try to ridicule this synthesis by calling the process "random events" or "out of nothing", but you forget that there are sextillions of molecules bumping into each other every second in every cubic centimetre of proto-atmosphere, each one being "an event" that might produce a more complex product.  So the chances of producing a more complex product might seem infinitely small, and yet quite commonly happen in the Earth's atmosphere over billions of years.

Sure, after a googleplex (10100) of collisions, you get a few amino acids sprinkled out in your primordial soup.  How do those amino acids then find the few RNA molecules to bump into also in the primordial soup, and how do those RNA molecules decide to start coding for building proteins?  How did this 3 digit coding evolve from the zillion random collisions?  This is like a room full of chimpanzees with typewriters pecking out the complete works of Shakespeare without so much as a typo.  Even given infinite amount of time, it won't happen, and the earth only had a few billion years to get this done.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 12, 2017, 05:59:43 PM
Actually the idea of life starting spontaneously from the basic building blocks bumping into each other in a predictable, yet random way, is a quite elegant thesis. 

This is a beautiful planet. Even now. A spectacular universe. However we got here, being here is special. The sun, the tides, the wind, the rain. Absolutely amazing.

If there is no God, how did we get so lucky?
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 06:14:06 PM
Actually the idea of life starting spontaneously from the basic building blocks bumping into each other in a predictable, yet random way, is a quite elegant thesis. 

This is a beautiful planet. Even now. A spectacular universe. However we got here, being here is special. The sun, the tides, the wind, the rain. Absolutely amazing.

If there is no God, how did we get so lucky?

According to the Atheistic Theory, we won the Cosmological LOTTO.  ::)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 12, 2017, 08:30:49 PM
You just made that googleplex number up to suit your own argument, and didn't work out how many "events" of a gas molecule bumping into another gas molecule there are in the whole atmosphere in a billion years.  Maybe that figure would completely overwhelm a mere googleplex.

The first formation of HCN is almost instant, and will happen everywhere in the atmosphere.  Likewise formaldehyde and all the simpler stuff.  In a reducing atmosphere there won't be anything available to break them down, so once produced, they will continue to collect.

One aspect of Chemistry is the study of the rate at which chemical reactions progress.  It always involves the concentrations of the various reactants, so as concentrations build up, the next step in the synthesis becomes more likely.  Obviously this next step doesn't happen just once, it happens trillions of times in different parts of the atmosphere, increasing the chances of the NEXT step happening.

Once you've got the catalyst formed, it will progressively build up longer and longer chains of the monomers - catalysts are not consumed in the process.  In the process of mRNA formation, electron microscopes can actually see the mRNA growing longer as it is "bumped into" by the next base in the sequence.  And computer models of the process, using only the rules of chemistry, can show the same thing happening right there on the screen before your very eyes.

So it's all one way traffic towards more complexity, simply based on Chemistry.  We didn't "get so lucky", or win the cosmological lotto.  It would happen on any planet with a G-class star and orbiting in the liquid water zone, and we know there are hundreds of billions of G-class stars and they mostly have plenty of planets.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 09:04:18 PM

So it's all one way traffic towards more complexity, simply based on Chemistry.  We didn't "get so lucky", or win the cosmological lotto.  It would happen on any planet with a G-class star and orbiting in the liquid water zone, and we know there are hundreds of billions of G-class stars and they mostly have plenty of planets.

Totally Faith Based statement.  You have Zero Proof of this idea, and you can't model it in an experiment.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 12, 2017, 09:43:45 PM
It's not "faith-based" in any way at all.  The Miller-Urey experiment is proof of steps 1 to ~40, the rest is proof by induction.  That is a whole lot better than your wishy-washy God theory, for which you have no evidence whatsoever.  If you were to spell out exactly what you think, you would have no supporters either, because everybody would have their own version.

If you were to lock up 100 mathematicans/chemists in a room together, they would all come up with the same answer.  If you were to do the same with 100 Godists, they would come up with 100 answers.  That's how you know the scientists are onto something, but haven't got to the end yet, and the Godists are working on something that is uncomputable.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 12, 2017, 09:56:01 PM
It's not "faith-based" in any way at all.  The Miller-Urey experiment is proof of steps 1 to ~40, the rest is proof by induction.  That is a whole lot better than your wishy-washy God theory, for which you have no evidence whatsoever.  If you were to spell out exactly what you think, you would have no supporters either, because everybody would have their own version.

Nonsense. It's entirely faith based.  They've never even got to the point of getting an amino acid to spontaneously connect with an RNA molecule, much less assemble itself into any kind of functional protein.  You just take on faith that this is possible.  Get back to me when it's done.

Quote
If you were to lock up 100 mathematicans/chemists in a room together, they would all come up with the same answer.  If you were to do the same with 100 Godists, they would come up with 100 answers.  That's how you know the scientists are onto something, but haven't got to the end yet, and the Godists are working on something that is uncomputable.

Who said everything has to be computable?

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Surly1 on April 13, 2017, 03:56:51 AM

I'm currently reading, researching a group of Siberian tribes people that are
utterly astounding as to how close they live to the Earth. There clairvoyance is off the charts.
The folks living in society have absolutely no idea how deliberately maligned our species has been treated, by our own kind, no less.
The woo-woo factor isn't even necessary here.

Uh.. just don't drop that here and adduce further! Sounds interesting. Got anything to add?
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 13, 2017, 05:14:36 AM
RE.... I do not think I am a "Pantheist", as the definition you used to describe it. I do not attribute any "being" behind the appearance of the universe. What Pantheism seems to describe is some kind of being or supra intelligent entity permeating everything. The best way I can put it is "It is the way it is." Whenever my mind goes into figuring out how that can be, it comes up with no answers. To attribute a "director" that is moving all the nano particles into place, just seems ridiculous to me. There is no reason to attribute an external "force" to the universe. It seems like that is still just human imagination.

From a book we have in our library....

Self Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness
By Padmasambhava

Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,
awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

After years of this kind of practice, I am quite satisfied with the universe being "indescribable."
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 13, 2017, 05:26:33 AM
RE.... I do not think I am a "Pantheist", as the definition you used to describe it.

You may not be a Pantheist, but what you described in your last post was Pantheism.

Quote from: Knarf
What if the whole universe IS "god"? What it is like as it evolves has innate qualities to it. Over billions of years these qualities have become manifest in our world.  We just happened to be part of that manifestation.

Quote from: Merriam Webster
Definition of pantheism

    1
    :  a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

Quote from: Dictionary.com
pantheism
[pan-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1.
the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2.
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 13, 2017, 05:52:17 AM
RE.... I do not think I am a "Pantheist", as the definition you used to describe it.

You may not be a Pantheist, but what you described in your last post was Pantheism.

Quote from: Knarf
What if the whole universe IS "god"? What it is like as it evolves has innate qualities to it. Over billions of years these qualities have become manifest in our world.  We just happened to be part of that manifestation.

Quote from: Merriam Webster
Definition of pantheism

    1
    :  a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

Quote from: Dictionary.com
pantheism
[pan-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1.
the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2.
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

RE

Yea, the first question is like Pantheism, but I qualified that question with out it in the next sentence. It's action is innate to itself.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 13, 2017, 06:08:53 AM
RE.... I do not think I am a "Pantheist", as the definition you used to describe it.

You may not be a Pantheist, but what you described in your last post was Pantheism.

Quote from: Knarf
What if the whole universe IS "god"? What it is like as it evolves has innate qualities to it. Over billions of years these qualities have become manifest in our world.  We just happened to be part of that manifestation.

Quote from: Merriam Webster
Definition of pantheism

    1
    :  a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

Quote from: Dictionary.com
pantheism
[pan-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1.
the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2.
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

RE

Yea, the first question is like Pantheism, but I qualified that question with out it in the next sentence. It's action is innate to itself.

In Pantheism, all actions are innate unto themselves, because they are part of the nature of the Universe/God.  There is no cause/effect, its all part of the whole.

Quote
The first known use of the term "pantheism" was in Latin, by the English mathematician Joseph Raphson in his work De spatio reali, published in 1697.[24] In De spatio reali, Raphson begins with a distinction between atheistic "panhylists" (from the Greek roots pan, "all", and hyle, "matter"), who believe everything is matter, and Spinozan "pantheists" who believe in "a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligence, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence."[25][26] Raphson thought that the universe was immeasurable in respect to a human's capacity of understanding, and believed that humans would never be able to comprehend it.[27]

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 13, 2017, 07:00:55 AM
The Total Perspective Vortex
from "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" by Douglas Adams

The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on the principle of extrapolated matter analysis.

To explain - since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation - every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.

The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in order to annoy his wife.

Trin Tragula - for that was his name - was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.

And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.

"Have some sense of proportion !", she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.

And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex - just to show her.

And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife : so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.

To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realised that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 13, 2017, 07:28:40 AM
The Total Perspective Vortex
from "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" by Douglas Adams

The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on the principle of extrapolated matter analysis.

To explain - since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation - every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.

The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in order to annoy his wife.

Trin Tragula - for that was his name - was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.

And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.

"Have some sense of proportion !", she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.

And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex - just to show her.

And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife : so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.

To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realised that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.

 :emthup: :emthup:
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 13, 2017, 11:49:22 AM
I really wish I knew the real story. Douglas Adams writes very much in the style of C.S. Lewis, and having read and enjoyed both of them, I have to wonder how that happened. If you know much about C.S. Lewis the man, you might agree that there seems to be a whole lot of irony there.


Since they're both dead now, I'm not sure who to ask.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: agelbert on April 13, 2017, 12:07:38 PM
I really wish I knew the real story. Douglas Adams writes very much in the style of C.S. Lewis, and having read and enjoyed both of them, I have to wonder how that happened. If you know much about C.S. Lewis the man, you might agree that there seems to be a whole lot of irony there.

Since they're both dead now, I'm not sure who to ask.

If you really want to know how C. S. Lewis thought, you need to properly understand and interpret what he meant when one of his characters in the Chronicles of Narnia said following:

Quote
"It's all Plato".

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: K-Dog on April 13, 2017, 01:28:55 PM
'The restaurant at the end of the universe.'  Where Diners go to get their celestial reward after Trump signs our paycheck.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 13, 2017, 05:38:12 PM
I really wish I knew the real story. Douglas Adams writes very much in the style of C.S. Lewis, and having read and enjoyed both of them, I have to wonder how that happened. If you know much about C.S. Lewis the man, you might agree that there seems to be a whole lot of irony there.

Since they're both dead now, I'm not sure who to ask.

If you really want to know how C. S. Lewis thought, you need to properly understand and interpret what he meant when one of his characters in the Chronicles of Narnia said following:

Quote
"It's all Plato".

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)

Thank you AG. I found this, which seems to shed some light on Lewis's deepest beliefs.

In The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis brings his Narnian tale to an end. The forces of good and evil come to a head, and Aslan ushers in the end of Narnia and the beginning of eternity. Toward the end of the book, the old Narnia has ended and the faithful have entered through a magical door into Aslan’s land. As they explore this new world, they notice that it looks a lot like the old Narnia, just better—richer, purer, more real, untainted by evil, eternal.
And Lord Digory, who had been present during the creation of Narnia (another wonderful tale found in The Magician’s Nephew), blurts out:
It’s all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!

Granted, Lewis is writing fiction here, but what deeper truth about eternity is he pointing to? I think it is this. When this age has passed, and God redeems and restores all of creation, the faithful will finally experience life the way it is supposed to be. In a sense, our experience will seem more real, because it will be untainted by sin and misery. In eternity, the faithful will experience intimacy with God and harmony with each other as we worship, serve, and explore for eternity the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1).
This is the great hope of Christianity—that this world is not the end of the story for those who know Christ, rather it is just the beginning. Lewis ends the book with this:
. . . it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.



He believed that heaven was just like earth,  but harmonious, perfected and infinitely sustainable through the power of God. Earth as it should be, if humans weren't always screwing it up. I can see the attraction to that kind of mythos. Highly intelligent people are more aware of how screwed up the world is, and they need to find a way to make sense of it. It must have been very comforting to have this faith that all the bad stuff would be fixed.

Just like it's very easy for doomers to get very depressed these days, as we watch civilization start to come apart at the seams. Most of us need something to give us some comfort. I take comfort in believing that each of us is on a journey of learning and spiritually maturing and developing through many lifetimes, and that we aren't under pressure to get everything worked out in this one.

Not to get too far off into any kind of potential argument. thank you for the reference. I enjoyed the lesson.

Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 13, 2017, 05:51:48 PM
Just like it's very easy for doomers to get very depressed these days, as we watch civilization start to come apart at the seams. Most of us need something to give us some comfort. I take comfort in believing that each of us is on a journey of learning and spiritually maturing and developing through many lifetimes, and that we aren't under pressure to get everything worked out in this one.

I take my comfort in the knowledge that Bankster Heads will Roll like Bowling Balls and after a massive die off surviving Heliopaths & Diners in SUN☼ Communities will Reboot the Earth as dedicated stewards of the Environment, and Greed and Money shall be Banished from the Earth forever more. (or at least for 500M more years anyhow)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: agelbert on April 13, 2017, 06:29:40 PM
I really wish I knew the real story. Douglas Adams writes very much in the style of C.S. Lewis, and having read and enjoyed both of them, I have to wonder how that happened. If you know much about C.S. Lewis the man, you might agree that there seems to be a whole lot of irony there.

Since they're both dead now, I'm not sure who to ask.

If you really want to know how C. S. Lewis thought, you need to properly understand and interpret what he meant when one of his characters in the Chronicles of Narnia said following:

Quote
"It's all Plato".

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)

Thank you AG. I found this, which seems to shed some light on Lewis's deepest beliefs.

In The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis brings his Narnian tale to an end. The forces of good and evil come to a head, and Aslan ushers in the end of Narnia and the beginning of eternity. Toward the end of the book, the old Narnia has ended and the faithful have entered through a magical door into Aslan’s land. As they explore this new world, they notice that it looks a lot like the old Narnia, just better—richer, purer, more real, untainted by evil, eternal.
And Lord Digory, who had been present during the creation of Narnia (another wonderful tale found in The Magician’s Nephew), blurts out:
It’s all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!

Granted, Lewis is writing fiction here, but what deeper truth about eternity is he pointing to? I think it is this. When this age has passed, and God redeems and restores all of creation, the faithful will finally experience life the way it is supposed to be. In a sense, our experience will seem more real, because it will be untainted by sin and misery. In eternity, the faithful will experience intimacy with God and harmony with each other as we worship, serve, and explore for eternity the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1).
This is the great hope of Christianity—that this world is not the end of the story for those who know Christ, rather it is just the beginning. Lewis ends the book with this:
. . . it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.



He believed that heaven was just like earth,  but harmonious, perfected and infinitely sustainable through the power of God. Earth as it should be, if humans weren't always screwing it up. I can see the attraction to that kind of mythos. Highly intelligent people are more aware of how screwed up the world is, and they need to find a way to make sense of it. It must have been very comforting to have this faith that all the bad stuff would be fixed.

Just like it's very easy for doomers to get very depressed these days, as we watch civilization start to come apart at the seams. Most of us need something to give us some comfort. I take comfort in believing that each of us is on a journey of learning and spiritually maturing and developing through many lifetimes, and that we aren't under pressure to get everything worked out in this one.

Not to get too far off into any kind of potential argument. thank you for the reference. I enjoyed the lesson.



You are most welcome. And thank you for your research. C. S. Lewis rocks!
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 14, 2017, 03:01:06 PM
Oh the irony. A post started about my frustrations at mans inability to interact with his fellow man without killing each other should degrade into an argument about religion.  :'(

I may well be a pantheist; call me what you want, it is only a label. I call myself atheist, but I am probably a 99.9% sure agnostic, as just as I see no evidence for gods, I have no definitive evidence none exist either! This does not mean I want to harm those different to me.

Contrary to what many theists tell me, I am not a nihilist, debauching devil worshiping heathen because I don’t believe in their important imaginary friend. (The devil bit is doubly ironic for me when I explain to them I don’t believe in your invisible friends including your evil ones...) I do think we only have 1 shot as this life, so we should make the best of it. What the best of it means is up to your personal ethics and morals. Killing my fellow man is not high up on my list. If we get a second shot, but have no memory of the first we will still never learn....

Believe what you like, as long as it does no harm.

Quote from the WEB:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount : “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” The Mosaic law contains a parallel commandment: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.”Do unto other as you would have

Sounds good to me. Looks like I am in agreance with the famous Nazareen. I think he had a few good things to say actually.

If we are to be judged at the end of times so be it, don’t judge now based on a twisted ideology which says all unwed debauchees/ gays/ atheists/ blasphemers/ unbelievers/ Australians are evil and should be stoned to death! (I have heard all these except for Australian one, but I am sure there is someone out there who wants to kill Australians just because... Because.... Because!). 

The most stupid head fuck comment I have ever heard is the hyper macho: “ Kill them all and let god sort the out!”

Modern society is becoming a mix of “Idiocracy” and “Star Ship Troopers.” Never thought these 2 movies were documentaries. 

If there is a responsible god and I meet him/ her/ it, I will be mighty pissed, and will be asking a lot of questions!

In the meantime we will just keep bombing and killing and telling ourselves how its part of gods plan.

Another song comes to mind:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need…

JOW
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 14, 2017, 03:03:01 PM
Oh, and to all the Christians out there Happy Easter, and to all of humanity: Peace be with you.

JOW
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 14, 2017, 03:07:12 PM
I didn't realise I cut off the last verse:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today... Aha-ah...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 03:32:11 PM
Oh the irony. A post started about my frustrations at mans inability to interact with his fellow man without killing each other should degrade into an argument about religion.  :'(

You never know what direction a thread will take when you start it on the Diner.  It's a risk you take. lol.

I wouldn't characterize this as "degradation" though, I think some very interesting opinions of a diverse nature were expressed in the thread so far, and no napalm either!  :icon_sunny:

Quote
I may well be a pantheist; call me what you want, it is only a label.

Labels are very important to database freaks.  You need the Title field and keywords to be able to search things down efficiently.

Quote
I call myself atheist, but I am probably a 99.9% sure agnostic, as just as I see no evidence for gods, I have no definitive evidence none exist either!

I used to be in that camp, but after around 40 years walking the earth I found enough evidence to put me in the camp of Panentheists.  Last 20 years of my life spent in this subcategory of the database.

Quote
This does not mean I want to harm those different to me.

I don't want to harm anyone different from me except BANKSTERS!

Quote
Contrary to what many theists tell me, I am not a nihilist, debauching devil worshiping heathen because I don’t believe in their important imaginary friend. (The devil bit is doubly ironic for me when I explain to them I don’t believe in your invisible friends including your evil ones...) I do think we only have 1 shot as this life, so we should make the best of it. What the best of it means is up to your personal ethics and morals. Killing my fellow man is not high up on my list. If we get a second shot, but have no memory of the first we will still never learn....

In order to retain and access memories from past lives, first you must become enlightened and be able to access those memories.  You can't do that if you don't believe it's possible.

Quote
Believe what you like, as long as it does no harm.

I agree with that, with the exception of BANKSTERS!

Quote
Quote from the WEB:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount : “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” The Mosaic law contains a parallel commandment: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.”Do unto other as you would have

Sounds good to me. Looks like I am in agreance with the famous Nazareen. I think he had a few good things to say actually.

Philosophically he had a lot of good things to say, and he clearly was a very charismatic preacher.  That does not make him the Son of God though.

Quote
If we are to be judged at the end of times so be it, don’t judge now based on a twisted ideology which says all unwed debauchees/ gays/ atheists/ blasphemers/ unbelievers/ Australians are evil and should be stoned to death! (I have heard all these except for Australian one, but I am sure there is someone out there who wants to kill Australians just because... Because.... Because!).

"First they came for the Yanks, and I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Hosers, and I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Poms, and I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Kiwis, and I did not speak out.
When they came for the Aussies, there was no one left to speak for me."
- Rev. RE Niemholler

Quote
The most stupid head fuck comment I have ever heard is the hyper macho: “ Kill them all and let god sort the out!”

You have been frequenting too many alt-right libertarian websites.

Quote
Modern society is becoming a mix of “Idiocracy” and “Star Ship Troopers.” Never thought these 2 movies were documentaries.

Don't forget 1984, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver... 

Quote
If there is a responsible god and I meet him/ her/ it, I will be mighty pissed, and will be asking a lot of questions!

You don't get an appointment with God in the Great Beyond if you don't get Enlightened in this life.  His secretary doesn't take phone calls from 99.9% Agnostics.  See above about Enlightenment.

Quote
In the meantime we will just keep bombing and killing and telling ourselves how its part of gods plan.

It may not be part of God's "Plan".  He may have just created the Universe and "set it and forget it".

Quote
Another song comes to mind:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need…

Here's another one for you...

http://www.youtube.com/v/gv1KEF8Uw2k

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 14, 2017, 05:21:56 PM
Sorry about the religion stuff. Palloy just made that Douglas Adams quote, and it made me think about C.S. Lewis. And then when I think about C.S. Lewis it automatically makes me think about Owen Barfield, and J.R.R. Tolkien. They were all drinking buddies. Oxford dons.

I'm not particularly religious. I do not attend services. But I am interested in whether there is some kind of immortal soul. It seems like a valid question to ask. More specifically, you always have that argument (which we have talked about here on many occasions) of whether consciousness is primary and physical reality arises out of consciousness or whether consciousness arises out of physical reality (the brain giving rise to thoughts).

My observation is that many things seem to make far better sense if you can accept that consciousness is primary. And it makes sense to me that our actions always have consequences. In our world it mostly seems that things are controlled by rich, evil people who basically get away with murder and thievery, and they never get punished. If you believe in karma and life after life, you come to realize that justice is done, just on a cosmic scale, and not an ordinary human scale.

Many of Jesus's teachings make better sense if you think of him, not as a God, but as an enlightened soul..... a holy saint who was trying to teach us how to personally access the kind of awareness he possessed.

I never quite got the part of Christianity where God causes the dead to arise and stand in judgment. But I can get my head around the idea that when we die that our soul is transfigured, and we are forced to look squarely at our own past actions, without being able to make excuses or lay blame on anyone else. I can believe that we are our own harshest judge, and that when we are forced to come to a full realization of the consequences of our own lifetime of behaviors, that there might be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I don't remember my own past lives (at least very little) but I do see how almost everyone I know has some kind of deep-seated fear, or attraction, or even a skill, that they just seem to have been born with. Past lives (the way it looks to me) mold you into who you are. We are not simply born and then develop from a blank book into a certain personality. People are born with personality already programmed. Where would that come from? Species memory? DNA? Exactly how would that work?

Palloy talked about the Miller-Urey experiments and about how nature and life follow the rules of mathematics and chemistry. To me, that doesn't run counter to the idea of some kind of guiding force or higher power or roadmap for the unfolding of the universe. Or that there are strong forces at play that we don't grasp in the slightest way.

Someone said...maybe it was Planck, or Heisenberg, can't remember for sure "For the religious faithful God is the beginning. For the scientist, God comes at the end."

Planck, I looked it up. the full quote is:

 "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[35]








Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 14, 2017, 05:50:05 PM
I stopped worrying, or caring, about whether there is "rebirth," reincarnation, an afterlife... a long time ago.  It's of no concern to me.  And it seems very unlikely that there is, since mindedness and awareness are so obviously grounded in embodiment.  But it still doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  What matters most to me is "Can I be intimate in and with this very life."  That's the most compelling question for me, and it is more than enough for me in this lifetime -- or any other.

Can I be intimate in how my feet touch the ground?

Can I be intimate in this in-breath and this out-breath?

Can I be intimate with the mysterious depths within and outside of myself?

Can I be intimate with my friends, loved ones, acquaintances...

... clouds, bumble bees, breezes, mountains and rivers...?

... in and with this moment and then this one and then this one?

I do not concern myself with an afterlife or rebirth / reincarnation because the call to intimacy in this life is so big in me, and because it appears to be so very deeply challenging, and yet so very, very easy. Both. Paradoxically so.

My mantra, though, is "I don't know."  It is very sincere.  There is no goose to be gilded.  Nothing extra.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 05:57:37 PM
I stopped worrying, or caring, about whether there is "rebirth," reincarnation, an afterlife... a long time ago.  It's of no concern to me.  And it seems very unlikely that there is, since mindedness and awareness are so obviously grounded in embodiment.  But it still doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  What matters most to me is "Can I be intimate in and with this very life."  That's the most compelling question for me, and it is more than enough for me in this lifetime -- or any other.

Can I be intimate in how my feet touch the ground?

Can I be intimate in this in-breath and this out-breath?

Can I be intimate with the mysterious depths within and outside of myself?

Can I be intimate with my friends, loved ones, acquaintances...

... clouds, bumble bees, breezes, mountains and rivers...?

... in and with this moment and then this one and then this one?

I do not concern myself with an afterlife or rebirth / reincarnation because the call to intimacy in this life is so big in me, and because it appears to be so very deeply challenging, and yet so very, very easy. Both. Paradoxically so.

My mantra, though, is "I don't know."  It is very sincere.  There is no goose to be gilded.  Nothing extra.

I think one needs to get past the intimacy with the corporeal world in order to appreciate what is beyond it.  If you are too steeped in the reality of your feet touching the ground or breathing in and out, you can't reach for a higher consciousness.  It's very limiting, and for me this failed in my early 40s.  So I moved on.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 14, 2017, 06:05:51 PM
I stopped worrying, or caring, about whether there is "rebirth," reincarnation, an afterlife... a long time ago.  It's of no concern to me.  And it seems very unlikely that there is, since mindedness and awareness are so obviously grounded in embodiment.  But it still doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  What matters most to me is "Can I be intimate in and with this very life."  That's the most compelling question for me, and it is more than enough for me in this lifetime -- or any other.

Can I be intimate in how my feet touch the ground?

Can I be intimate in this in-breath and this out-breath?

Can I be intimate with the mysterious depths within and outside of myself?

Can I be intimate with my friends, loved ones, acquaintances...

... clouds, bumble bees, breezes, mountains and rivers...?

... in and with this moment and then this one and then this one?

I do not concern myself with an afterlife or rebirth / reincarnation because the call to intimacy in this life is so big in me, and because it appears to be so very deeply challenging, and yet so very, very easy. Both. Paradoxically so.

My mantra, though, is "I don't know."  It is very sincere.  There is no goose to be gilded.  Nothing extra.

I got no problem with your approach. Living in the present moment is generally a very good idea if you can do it.

I used to go to long workshops where people tried to help me learn to show unconditional love and live in the present moment.

Then I had this epiphany. My dogs always live in the present moment, and they are so much better at unconditional love than I am that it's embarrassing. So I learned from my daughter's Heeler. His name was Stubb's, and he became my guru, sorta.

He taught me how to do breathe work. He used to lie on the couch with me and he'd inhale a very deep breath, and then just let out a sigh. I tried it. It was so relaxing. He even taught me a little about how to die. I am trying to live up to his standards.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 14, 2017, 06:07:29 PM
"Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[35]

One of the many reasons the word "God" is so meaningless to me is that people call "God" "He," which is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Some others call "God" by "She," which -- at least in this case -- seems to be more of a metaphor, or something similar -- as in how folks speak of "Mother Nature".

That "God" is spoken of in gendered terms has always seemed to me just flat out preposterous.  I would be instinctively atheist, because of it, were it not for my instinct for nature mysticism (which I write here in lower case letters mostly because it's so ordinary and everyday and because it is not made into a person).   Nature mysticism is, to me, obvious.  Mysticism mostly because it (nature) is so fundamentally mysterious -- except to people who see nature as our set of explanations about "how it works".  Our not knowing about nature is ten million times greater than our paltry knowing about it; which I also take as obvious.

But it is precisely those questions about nature which don't make scientific sense (ultimately) which make nature mystical.  Like "Why are we here?" (in other than a more-or-less Darwinian sense), or "What does it all mean, jelly bean?"  These questions are not in search of conceptual answers, but feeling ones -- even sensing ones.  Yes, we can actually SENSE our essential being / nature -- even if we cannot undertand or explain it.   And when we do, we know we are each leaves on the tree of nature, and waves on the ocean of nature....  And that the leaf is the tree and the wave is the ocean. 
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 14, 2017, 06:17:30 PM

I got no problem with your approach. Living in the present moment is generally a very good idea if you can do it.

I used to go to long workshops where people tried to help me learn to show unconditional love and live in the present moment.

Then I had this epiphany. My dogs always live in the present moment, and they are so much better at unconditional love than I am that it's embarrassing. So I learned from my daughter's Heeler. His name was Stubb's, and he became my guru, sorta.

He taught me how to do breathe work. He used to lie on the couch with me and he'd inhale a very deep breath, and then just let out a sigh. I tried it. It was so relaxing. He even taught me a little about how to die. I am trying to live up to his standards.

We're always living in the present moment, really.  Then again, strangely not.  But becoming intimate with what is actual and real reveals that we're always here and now, and there is no other moment -- nor has there ever been.  Or will ever be.

This claim is not so exotic as it seems.  Now and now and now and now. That's our home.  That's where the rubber meets the road. It's where our feet touch the ground.  Every kiss or hug, every sunrise or sunset.... Every dog or tree is now.  And now and now and now.  Aligning with this as a FACT is part and parcel of the practice of intimacy.  Which can be scary, 'cause we can't bring all of our theories and maps and models of ourselves and others and the world into the field of intimacy.  We have to go there somewhat naked, so to speak.

This does NOT mean we can't make use of maps and models and theories.  We need these.  We're HUMAN after all!  But these are not to be mistaken as our primary experience, our primary contact with life and being.... Our primary contact with being is always in the mysterious depths of now and now and now -- and not to be found in maps and models and theories.  Now is not finite.  Now is now.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 14, 2017, 06:17:52 PM
Well, Planck lived in a time when all the real physicists were men, and the women were damned proud of it.

You have to take it in historical context. (Or should I say herstorical context?)
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 06:19:32 PM
"Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[35]

One of the many reasons the word "God" is so meaningless to me is that people call "God" "He," which is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Some others call "God" by "She," which -- at least in this case -- seems to be more of a metaphor, or something similar -- as in how folks speak of "Mother Nature".

I also do not like this kind of anthropomorphising of God, or the gender identification that often goes with it.  For pronoun usage, "IT" is the better choice, but general convention is to use the "HE" or "HIM" pronoun.  Feminists will often substitute "SHE" or "HER" to make a statetment, and really Politically Correct people will use all 3 divided by backslashes, as in "He/She/It".

It's one of those overall language difficulties you have in trying to discuss such concepts.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 14, 2017, 06:24:44 PM
"Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[35]

One of the many reasons the word "God" is so meaningless to me is that people call "God" "He," which is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Some others call "God" by "She," which -- at least in this case -- seems to be more of a metaphor, or something similar -- as in how folks speak of "Mother Nature".

I also do not like this kind of anthropomorphising of God, or the gender identification that often goes with it.  For pronoun usage, "IT" is the better choice, but general convention is to use the "HE" or "HIM" pronoun.  Feminists will often substitute "SHE" or "HER" to make a statetment, and really Politically Correct people will use all 3 divided by backslashes, as in "He/She/It".

It's one of those overall language difficulties you have in trying to discuss such concepts.

RE

Don't have cow, man. See above. Max Planck was born before the US Civil War.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 14, 2017, 06:26:11 PM
Like, I worship the Goddess, dude. The pagans knew a good thing. Full moons are for fertility rites.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 14, 2017, 06:30:04 PM
I think one needs to get past the intimacy with the corporeal world in order to appreciate what is beyond it.  If you are too steeped in the reality of your feet touching the ground or breathing in and out, you can't reach for a higher consciousness.  It's very limiting, and for me this failed in my early 40s.  So I moved on.

NOTHING whatsoever exists for us humans outside of intimacy with this very world, our bodies and our life here.  If we do not ground intimately in our bodies and our lives in this world there will certainly be no "great beyond" for us to embrace or to escape into.

For millennia, lunatics and madmen have been proclaiming another world beyond this one, above and away from it.  Such people don't have their precious, sacred feet on the ground.

"There is another world, but it is in this one."

    - Paul Éluard

Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 06:33:29 PM
"Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[35]

One of the many reasons the word "God" is so meaningless to me is that people call "God" "He," which is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Some others call "God" by "She," which -- at least in this case -- seems to be more of a metaphor, or something similar -- as in how folks speak of "Mother Nature".

I also do not like this kind of anthropomorphising of God, or the gender identification that often goes with it.  For pronoun usage, "IT" is the better choice, but general convention is to use the "HE" or "HIM" pronoun.  Feminists will often substitute "SHE" or "HER" to make a statetment, and really Politically Correct people will use all 3 divided by backslashes, as in "He/She/It".

It's one of those overall language difficulties you have in trying to discuss such concepts.

RE

Don't have cow, man. See above. Max Planck was born before the US Civil War.

LOL. Not having a cow.  I'm just elucidating the language issue JRM brought up.  For me, whether the pronoun is He, She or It doesn't matter if context tells me that the person is referring to God.  God isn't Human and has no definable gender at all.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 06:37:09 PM
I think one needs to get past the intimacy with the corporeal world in order to appreciate what is beyond it.  If you are too steeped in the reality of your feet touching the ground or breathing in and out, you can't reach for a higher consciousness.  It's very limiting, and for me this failed in my early 40s.  So I moved on.

NOTHING whatsoever exists for us humans outside of intimacy with this very world, our bodies and our life here.

That is just a belief structure, you have no proof of that concept.  It's your Religion.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 14, 2017, 06:46:32 PM

LOL. Not having a cow.  I'm just elucidating the language issue JRM brought up.  For me, whether the pronoun is He, She or It doesn't matter if context tells me that the person is referring to God.  God isn't Human and has no definable gender at all.

RE

To me, the word "God" is redundant and confusing more than helpful or useful.  It should be dropped, disused.

God-believers have separated "God" from nature.  That was a monumental mistake, and all the more reason to abandon "God" (a fiction).

By separating "God" and nature a cascade of separations was born -- inner/outer, self/other, spirit/matter, human/animal ... on and on and on and on.... Endless metaphysical splicings which exaggerate their ontological and epistemological significance.  (Distinction is not identical with separation in this ontological picture.)

"God" is "invisible," weightless, "beyond," above, afar....  What a load of bullshit!

I see, hear, touch and taste ... lower case divinity each moment.   I breathe infinite air and ground my naked feet in the Cosmos.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 14, 2017, 06:54:26 PM
I think one needs to get past the intimacy with the corporeal world in order to appreciate what is beyond it.  If you are too steeped in the reality of your feet touching the ground or breathing in and out, you can't reach for a higher consciousness.  It's very limiting, and for me this failed in my early 40s.  So I moved on.

NOTHING whatsoever exists for us humans outside of intimacy with this very world, our bodies and our life here.

That is just a belief structure, you have no proof of that concept.  It's your Religion.

RE

It is not meant to be taken as a statement of the rationally knowable, or of science, or of "philosophy" as it exists in the academy.  It is the expressive language of a mystic poet -- but a naturalistic mystic.  Proof is not relevant to this statement of poetry.  I stake no claim of authority -- other than that of my own experience.

Real transcendence is immanence.  There is no other.  This here is "It".  This is our home.  There is nowhere else.

I have no religion... because ultimately I walk naked in this world.  Naked of metaphysical belief.  Naked of yearnings for a life "beyond".  Naked of finality or arrival, of certainty.... Naked. Ultimately naked. 

Naked of I, too, but with I.  Not beyond it.  Thank heaven!
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 07:04:03 PM

LOL. Not having a cow.  I'm just elucidating the language issue JRM brought up.  For me, whether the pronoun is He, She or It doesn't matter if context tells me that the person is referring to God.  God isn't Human and has no definable gender at all.

RE

To me, the word "God" is redundant and confusing more than helpful or useful.  It should be dropped, disused.

Oh FFS.  ANOTHER word you want to kick out of the dictionary!  Or redefine to your specifications.  ::)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 07:08:48 PM
I think one needs to get past the intimacy with the corporeal world in order to appreciate what is beyond it.  If you are too steeped in the reality of your feet touching the ground or breathing in and out, you can't reach for a higher consciousness.  It's very limiting, and for me this failed in my early 40s.  So I moved on.

NOTHING whatsoever exists for us humans outside of intimacy with this very world, our bodies and our life here.

That is just a belief structure, you have no proof of that concept.  It's your Religion.

RE

It is not meant to be taken as a statement of the rationally knowable, or of science, or of "philosophy" as it exists in the academy.  It is the expressive language of a mystic poet -- but a naturalistic mystic.  Proof is not relevant to this statement of poetry.  I stake no claim of authority -- other than that of my own experience.

WHAT?!?!?!?!  ???  :icon_scratch:

YOU'RE  the one always saying we gotta stick to the facts and no Woo-Woo allowed.

Now you're a Mystic with an intimate connection to the Wonders of Nature?  ???  Excuse me?

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Eddie on April 14, 2017, 07:37:31 PM

I got no problem with your approach. Living in the present moment is generally a very good idea if you can do it.

I used to go to long workshops where people tried to help me learn to show unconditional love and live in the present moment.

Then I had this epiphany. My dogs always live in the present moment, and they are so much better at unconditional love than I am that it's embarrassing. So I learned from my daughter's Heeler. His name was Stubb's, and he became my guru, sorta.

He taught me how to do breathe work. He used to lie on the couch with me and he'd inhale a very deep breath, and then just let out a sigh. I tried it. It was so relaxing. He even taught me a little about how to die. I am trying to live up to his standards.

We're always living in the present moment, really.  Then again, strangely not.  But becoming intimate with what is actual and real reveals that we're always here and now, and there is no other moment -- nor has there ever been.  Or will ever be.

This claim is not so exotic as it seems.  Now and now and now and now. That's our home.  That's where the rubber meets the road. It's where our feet touch the ground.  Every kiss or hug, every sunrise or sunset.... Every dog or tree is now.  And now and now and now.  Aligning with this as a FACT is part and parcel of the practice of intimacy.  Which can be scary, 'cause we can't bring all of our theories and maps and models of ourselves and others and the world into the field of intimacy.  We have to go there somewhat naked, so to speak.

This does NOT mean we can't make use of maps and models and theories.  We need these.  We're HUMAN after all!  But these are not to be mistaken as our primary experience, our primary contact with life and being.... Our primary contact with being is always in the mysterious depths of now and now and now -- and not to be found in maps and models and theories.  Now is not finite.  Now is now.

I am persuaded that most people almost never live in the present moment. They live in their past (memory) or in the future (anticipation). The problem is that neither the past nor the future, as we perceive it, is real.  Anyone who can live mostly in the present moment is a long way toward realization, imho.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 07:50:58 PM

I got no problem with your approach. Living in the present moment is generally a very good idea if you can do it.

I used to go to long workshops where people tried to help me learn to show unconditional love and live in the present moment.

Then I had this epiphany. My dogs always live in the present moment, and they are so much better at unconditional love than I am that it's embarrassing. So I learned from my daughter's Heeler. His name was Stubb's, and he became my guru, sorta.

He taught me how to do breathe work. He used to lie on the couch with me and he'd inhale a very deep breath, and then just let out a sigh. I tried it. It was so relaxing. He even taught me a little about how to die. I am trying to live up to his standards.

We're always living in the present moment, really.  Then again, strangely not.  But becoming intimate with what is actual and real reveals that we're always here and now, and there is no other moment -- nor has there ever been.  Or will ever be.

This claim is not so exotic as it seems.  Now and now and now and now. That's our home.  That's where the rubber meets the road. It's where our feet touch the ground.  Every kiss or hug, every sunrise or sunset.... Every dog or tree is now.  And now and now and now.  Aligning with this as a FACT is part and parcel of the practice of intimacy.  Which can be scary, 'cause we can't bring all of our theories and maps and models of ourselves and others and the world into the field of intimacy.  We have to go there somewhat naked, so to speak.

This does NOT mean we can't make use of maps and models and theories.  We need these.  We're HUMAN after all!  But these are not to be mistaken as our primary experience, our primary contact with life and being.... Our primary contact with being is always in the mysterious depths of now and now and now -- and not to be found in maps and models and theories.  Now is not finite.  Now is now.

I am persuaded that most people almost never live in the present moment. They live in their past (memory) or in the future (anticipation). The problem is that neither the past nor the future, as we perceive it, is real.  Anyone who can live mostly in the present moment is a long way toward realization, imho.

I like to balance them out.

I like to reminisce about the past, to compare it to the present and future.  I like to live in the present, because the present is the time I write in and it gives me somthing to think about and do.  I like to speculate on the future to be able to plan better for what is likely to come down the pipe.

I think you need to consider Past, Present & Future in all you do.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 14, 2017, 08:06:14 PM
Please don't tell me that the source of all divinity wastes time creating mortal 3D meatsuit'd sentient beings ...........


BAHAHAHAHAHAH
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 14, 2017, 08:32:38 PM
Please don't tell me that the source of all divinity wastes time creating mortal 3D meatsuit'd sentient beings ...........

Why would it waste time when it can...

SET IT, AND FORGET IT!

http://www.youtube.com/v/GG43jyZ65R8

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 15, 2017, 03:23:14 AM
You just can't make this shit up. We need peace to Ron Fucking Popeil running the universal show  :icon_sunny:

I love it when the inmates run the asylum.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 03:32:43 AM
You just can't make this shit up. We need peace to Ron Fucking Popeil running the universal show  :icon_sunny:

I love it when the inmates run the asylum.

 :icon_mrgreen:

I love making these pop culture analogies to philosophical questions.  Blows out a lot of hot air.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 15, 2017, 03:49:20 AM
You just can't make this shit up. We need peace to Ron Fucking Popeil running the universal show  :icon_sunny:

I love it when the inmates run the asylum.

 :icon_mrgreen:

I love making these pop culture analogies to philosophical questions.  Blows out a lot of hot air.

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/1F11KdbGfJ0&fs=1
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 15, 2017, 05:18:13 AM
We watched the movie "Stalin" last night. (Duvall) When it was over I realized all that massive warring of the Nazi's and the massive killings from Stalin , was pretty close to home. It was just one maybe two human life times ago. That is less than a blink of the eye in human evolution. We are steeped with that same curse in our present lifetime. We are selfish, crude, vicious, murders still. All of us share this heritage. No wonder there is a Trump like leader as our President. He really is the apex of the transparent human enigma.
  If we can face our "evil" nature and come to terms with our self absorption, i think we can learn to integrate it with our ability to understand that it does not need to control and lead us around by the nose. This may be happening , considering the absolute mess we have made of politics, religion, and our environment, many people are coming to understand they are ready for a change in our basic approach to life. It seems to me that this evolution is a very slow process, and maybe we have pooped to much in our own bed now, and any change will be to late.
  So, I think what we really need to have peace on our planet, is to have a nuclear war. Wipe out 3/4 of the population, live underground for ten years or however long it takes to survive to go topside, and reboot! Not really, I don't think there are enough people with a higher consciousness to see how well this would work. They want it all to be magically peaceful, So they them selves do not suffer needlessly. It ain't gonna happen that way. Forget the nuclear plan, it is too drastic, but something of that nature is the only thing that will escalate us to live in peace.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 07:23:59 AM
I am persuaded that most people almost never live in the present moment. They live in their past (memory) or in the future (anticipation). The problem is that neither the past nor the future, as we perceive it, is real.  Anyone who can live mostly in the present moment is a long way toward realization, imho.

What we call "the present moment" is actually a bit of a mystery.  A moment has no designation of duration, and is not really a unit of time. What is it then? 

What is it that we smuggle into the present moment, usually unwittingly, from the past?  What do we rob from the present while absorbed in anticipation?

There is a reason the man they call the Buddha established mindfulness of the body as the first of the four foundations of mindfulness. That reason is that the sorts of questions I ask above cannot be addressed by our cognitive functions in isolation from sensing and feeling.  Sensing and feeling are actually where the rubber meet the road in working with these koan-like questions.

People experience so little of "the present moment" because they are literally out of touch with it. (Also out of smell, hearing, taste, etc.)  Being out of touch with the present moment of experience (bound up in past and future) is literally to have lost one's senses. 

We become that which we practice.  If we practice a life of being out of our senses, that's what we become.  And it can take a lot of practice time to return... to come to our senses.

Our habits of thinking, mostly gained by enculturation, tend to imagine that we KNOW what it would be like to be in our senses -- but that's not only completely wrong, it's a terrible trap.  Why? Because living in a truly and fully embodied (and thus sensual, sensory...) way is SO MUCH MORE RICH AND VIVID AND ALIVE than our tiny little conceptual minds could possibly fathom.  We may be able to remember a time when we were quite young and the world was so alive and vivid, so vast and open and "magical," and when all of our faculties were in better rapport with one another (e.g., feeling, emotion, thinking, sensing, awareness of essential being, etc.).  Such memories can help us as we deliberately cultivate a capacity for being here and now.

All of us here in this forum grew up in a culture which not only supports and encourages disembodiment, but which makes it nearly impossible to avoid becoming disembodied -- or to lose our senses.  We are encouraged to dwell within and identify with "our heads" (our "thinking" -- or, really, our ever-habitual internal monologue).  We are encouraged to make representations of things (e.g., maps, models, theories, ideas) more primary in our lives than our actual, moment-by-moment lived experience.  And the result is that we eventually find it difficult, at best, to begin to come home to our real lives as they are from moment to moment -- or to the present moment. 

Very unfortunately, Buddhism is very often just as guilty (ironic!) of encouraging us to abandon our right minds and dwell in the future and past.

When I googled "four foundations of mindfulness" I found this:

Quote
Traditionally, mindfulness is thought to be applied to four domains, "constantly watching sensory experience in order to prevent the arising of cravings which would power future experience into rebirths,"[1] namely mindfulness of the body, feelings/sensations, mind/consciousness, and dhammās.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana

But no one with any REAL grounding in this very world is in the least concerned with "rebirth," nor would he or she seek to avoid "rebirth". What happened is that what is good in the dharma got all wrapped up with mythological and religious nonsense (literally!).

This is why I cannot adopt "Buddhism" as a religion even though I practice essentially Buddhist meditation (and teach it). 

You see, I KNOW (and don't merely imagine) that all "spiritual longing" is for that which lives brightly and fully in us in each and every this moment, which is always the only moment there is for us.  Every small step in that direction is taken by that which is already awake in us, which is not seeking. The universe is shot through with paradox and mystery.  And this is the central one. 

The Buddha was right about grasping.  The present moment evaporates with grasping.  So does breathing.  I say... let it go.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 07:47:33 AM
https://vimeo.com/14310916
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 08:09:52 AM
I think one needs to get past the intimacy with the corporeal world in order to appreciate what is beyond it.  If you are too steeped in the reality of your feet touching the ground or breathing in and out, you can't reach for a higher consciousness.  It's very limiting, and for me this failed in my early 40s.  So I moved on.

NOTHING whatsoever exists for us humans outside of intimacy with this very world, our bodies and our life here.

That is just a belief structure, you have no proof of that concept.  It's your Religion.

RE

It is not meant to be taken as a statement of the rationally knowable, or of science, or of "philosophy" as it exists in the academy.  It is the expressive language of a mystic poet -- but a naturalistic mystic.  Proof is not relevant to this statement of poetry.  I stake no claim of authority -- other than that of my own experience.

WHAT?!?!?!?!  ???  :icon_scratch:

YOU'RE  the one always saying we gotta stick to the facts and no Woo-Woo allowed.

Now you're a Mystic with an intimate connection to the Wonders of Nature?  ???  Excuse me?

RE


Theistic mysticism is about unity with God or the Divine.  Theistic would-be mystics seek union with God or the Divine.

Nature mysticism is about unity with nature.  Would-be nature mystics seek union with nature (or Nature, if you prefer).

What could be more intimate than union?

I'm not a would-be nature mystic, but the real deal.  Is it an exotic claim for me to say that I and nature are one?

Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 09:53:37 AM
I'm not a would-be nature mystic, but the real deal.  Is it an exotic claim for me to say that I and nature are one?

It's Woo-Woo.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 10:04:18 AM
Yeah.  Right.

RE, If I said "Fish swim in water" you'd tell me that was bullshit.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 10:18:06 AM
Yeah.  Right.

RE, If I said "Fish swim in water" you'd tell me that was bullshit.

If you said "Fish Swim in Water" I would suspect you were kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a clone who was your polar opposite and made CFS.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 15, 2017, 10:27:28 AM
This 3D meatsuit experience is good for cramming a lot this life's experiences in, in one lifetime.
The up's & down's & in's & out's. That's a lot of mano-e-mano's  with the god-head/source. 60-85 laps around Sol & the photo albums
complete.... SHIP IT !  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 10:38:27 AM
Attempting to have a reasonable conversation with RE is, of course, a silly proposition.  So I won't ask him if I'm separate from nature.

I was sort of imagining giving him choices... e.g.,

(a) I am separate from nature.

(b) I am non-separate in relation to nature.

(c) I am neither separate nor non-separate in relation to nature.

(d) I am both separate and non-separate in relation to nature.

(e) All talk of nature or of one's self in relation to nature is woo-woo.

(f) Fried fizzlesticks and bologna sandwitches.

But I'm sure anyone reading here who has seen RE in "dialogue" will see why I think doing so would be a pointless exercise -- or typing practice. 

Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 10:46:14 AM
I think RE and I cannot talk because our fundamental world views are not aligned enough for us to understand one another well.  If he WANTED to understand the world as I experience and know it, he might be able to.  But he does not. So all effort at communication ends in ... well, nothing much.

In my universe, cosmos, whatever, all is nature and there is nothing else besides -- no "extra".  No super-natural. No beyond or above nature, or outside of it.

Some may take me then to be a simple "naturalist" in the conventional sense, but anyone who's been reading my words in here over the years knows that simply isn't so.  MY nature is replete with mysteries, "magic," wonder, fathomless beauty and infinite depths wherever it appears -- be it thimble or star-sized. Or galaxy sized.

What people call "soul" and "spirit" is woven warp-and-woof into my nature.  All true mystical visions and aha! moments are within and about nature.

Nature for me is not simply a collection or assortment of scientific explanations.  It is always more and better than all of our stories, maps, models and theories about it.  And it is our home.  There is no other home for us. This is it.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 01:16:10 PM
Quote
Attempting to have a reasonable conversation with RE is, of course, a silly proposition.

This is first off ad hom argument.  Second, I have reasonable conversations with everybody else here.  You also conflict with AZ because his Woo-Woo conflicts with your Woo-Woo.  You don't like Christian Woo-Woo either. This is your problem, not my problem.

Quote
If he WANTED to understand the world as I experience and know it, he might be able to.

More ad hom.  Besides that though, this works both ways.  You apparently have no desire to try to grasp my world view either.

There is no other home for us. This is it.

So is the Religious Dogma of JRM, which we should believe not for any scientific or logical reason because it can't be explained and must be experienced through intimacy, but because the Natural Mystic High Priest of Nature tells us so.  All Bow to the Wisdom of the His Holiness the High Priest.  He's the Real Thing.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2msbfN81Gm0

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 01:24:12 PM
If the proposition that I (and everyone else) is not separate from nature is a "religious doctrine," so is the proposition that we are separate from nature -- and all world views are then -- at root -- religions.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 01:33:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/XSetJdaJm28

https://charleseisenstein.net/books/ascent-of-humanity/ (https://charleseisenstein.net/books/ascent-of-humanity/)
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 01:34:32 PM
If the proposition that I (and everyone else) is not separate from nature is a "religious doctrine," so is the proposition that we are separate from nature -- and all world views are then -- at root -- religions.

Indeed they are. Even science is religious dogma.  In more of the words of Max Planck:

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'


Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/maxplanck126264.html (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/maxplanck126264.html)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 01:55:34 PM
If the proposition that I (and everyone else) is not separate from nature is a "religious doctrine," so is the proposition that we are separate from nature -- and all world views are then -- at root -- religions.

Rational analysis (and therefore science and philosophy as generally practiced in the modern world) is insufficient to the most fundamental question of philosophy, upon which all philosophy rests.  Anyone can find this out for themselves with enough study and inquiry.  And what is this most basic, fundamental question?  It is, "What is there?" -- the most basic ontological question which underlies all epistemology, ethics, aesthetics ... and other branches of philosophy, abstract or applied.

I have just provided the basis of an argument against argument where argument is inapplicable and impotent.  Rationality is not enough for philosophy. Something more is needed which is arational.  (adjective.  not based on or governed by reason.  This word came into existence mainly to distinguish arationality from irrationality. To be irrational is to oppose reason and/or contradict it.  To be arational is often go to the radical root from which reason can spring -- that is, experience.

The problem is that when we begin with the premise that things--and people--are all separate, we perceive ourselves, things, and others through this filter, which provides us with the very basis of our perceptions.  If we believe in separation, our experience is of separation. If we do not, it is not.  Where, then, can we begin to reason and argue about ontology? --and all which springs from our ontology?

One can show, for example through the rich heritage of the field of ecological science, that people are not separate from ecosystems, from the sun, from the oceans, from bacteria in the soil....  But that only proves that these many systems are mutually enfolded in a wildly complex matrix of relationships.  It does not demonstrate that there is no good reason to FEEL that our "souls" are not an interior object separate from all other souls ... each of which have their own little alienated "self" stuffed up in their craniums.  Until one FEELS non-separation in this sense -- that we are not separate souls to begin with -- how much arguing philosophy will do us how much good? How much progress will we make in endless debates and arguments on such matters?

Ontology has its rational aspect and its arational one, and these two depend upon one another.  Irrationality is not needed.

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves how we want to live.  Do we want to live as though we were separate from one another, from nature, from the cosmos? 

For me, there is a crucially important difference between separation, per se, and distinction.  I recognize a world with uncountable many distinctions which at the same time has no fundamental separation within it.  But that's how I choose to live.  But then it is just as true to say that that's how the universe (or nature) wants to live me.



My answer to the ontological question "What is there?" (asked about the world, universe, cosmos) is:

processes and relations.

For me, the entire universe is comprised of processes and relations.  All relations are processes.  All processes are relations.

Relatedness is the basis of all existence.  Thus there is no separation.

But this is the rational explanation of that which can never end as inquiry within argument.

The arational part is vastly more important.  It states the same answer thusly:

What exists at bottom is the possibility of awakening to and expressing kindness, love, joy, freedom, peace....  We can enter into this kin-dom through intimacy, which is relationship on its outer layer and unity on its most inner one.  Intimacy is a word which characterizes both of these apparently two aspects of this whole.  So "What is there?" is answered with intimacy -- but not merely the word "intimacy".  The realization, the perception, the knowing....  Silence beyond the word silence.

Knowing does not open this door, for we know from what Eddie called the future and the past -- the force of habit and conditioning.  "Not knowing is most intimate" said the old zen fella.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 02:05:30 PM
If the proposition that I (and everyone else) is not separate from nature is a "religious doctrine," so is the proposition that we are separate from nature -- and all world views are then -- at root -- religions.

Rational analysis (and therefore science and philosophy as generally practiced in the modern world) is insufficient to the most fundamental question of philosophy, upon which all philosophy rests.  Anyone can find this out for themselves with enough study and inquiry.  And what is this most basic, fundamental question?  It is, "What is there?" -- the most basic ontological question which underlies all epistemology, ethics, aesthetics ... and other branches of philosophy, abstract or applied.

I have just provided the basis of an argument against argument where argument is inapplicable and impotent.  Rationality is not enough for philosophy. Something more is needed which is arational.  (adjective.  not based on or governed by reason.  This word came into existence mainly to distinguish arationality from irrationality. To be irrational is to oppose reason and/or contradict it.  To be arational is often go to the radical root from which reason can spring -- that is, experience.

The problem is that when we begin with the premise that things--and people--are all separate, we perceive ourselves, things, and others through this filter, which provides us with the very basis of our perceptions.  If we believe in separation, our experience is of separation. If we do not, it is not.  Where, then, can we begin to reason and argue about ontology? --and all which springs from our ontology?

One can show, for example through the rich heritage of the field of ecological science, that people are not separate from ecosystems, from the sun, from the oceans, from bacteria in the soil....  But that only proves that these many systems are mutually enfolded in a wildly complex matrix of relationships.  It does not demonstrate that there is no good reason to FEEL that our "souls" are not an interior object separate from all other souls ... each of which have their own little alienated "self" stuffed up in their craniums.  Until one FEELS non-separation in this sense -- that we are not separate souls to begin with -- how much arguing philosophy will do us how much good? How much progress will we make in endless debates and arguments on such matters?

Ontology has its rational aspect and its arational one, and these two depend upon one another.  Irrationality is not needed.

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves how we want to live.  Do we want to live as though we were separate from one another, from nature, from the cosmos? 

For me, there is a crucially important difference between separation, per se, and distinction.  I recognize a world with uncountable many distinctions which at the same time has no fundamental separation within it.  But that's how I choose to live.  But then it is just as true to say that that's how the universe (or nature) wants to live me.

How do you propose to get the vast majority of the world which thinks Irrationally along with the small percentage of the population that thinks Rationally all to start thinking Arationally? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 02:21:33 PM
How do you propose to get the vast majority of the world which thinks Irrationally along with the small percentage of the population that thinks Rationally all to start thinking Arationally? ???  :icon_scratch:

I, of course, have no such magical powers.  We, however, do.  We are we. How many are we?  We are many and one.

I is really always we.  No I can exist independently, you see.  We will wake up together or not at all.  At present we are--metaphorically--asleep.

But to be more direct in answering your question, thinking is not at the heart or essence of the arational of which I spoke.  You asked how we might get folks to "think" arationally.  I think what we need, instead, is to allow the arational to much more fully weave itself into our thinking, but also our perception and our activity.  The way I would propose to support that process is through embodiment practices, or practices of literally coming to our senses.  We come to our senses not so much in order to think better or differently, but to feel better and differently.  Our dominant culture has little place for genuine, deeply engaged, very sincere feeling.  We should directly challenge that -- first in our selves, then in our communities.

We say that when someone has gone mad that she has "lost her head," or "he's gone out of his head".  We associate "head" with thinking; and we tend to think that thinking differently is the path to a better world.  But closer to the truth is that we need to come to our senses, quite literally.  As we do so we will discover something quite astonishing about "ontology" that we cannot think with our "heads," nor can it be given to us by explanation or proved by reason or logic.  One actually has got to breathe one's breaths differently, feel one's steps differently, sense one's flesh differently....  If we do not have a feel for ontology (literally) we surely will never have any knowledge of it with which to build explanations or arguments which do not spin off into a wilderness of head trips.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 02:33:18 PM
How do you propose to get the vast majority of the world which thinks Irrationally along with the small percentage of the population that thinks Rationally all to start thinking Arationally? ???  :icon_scratch:

I, of course, have no such magical powers.  We, however, do.  We are we. How many are we?  We are many and one.

I is really always we.  No I can exist independently, you see.  We will wake up together or not at all.  At present we are--metaphorically--asleep.

So you envision a spontaneous wake-up call for 7.3B Homo Saps simultaneously?  Or at least over say a 20 year timeline?

I don't think this has a high likelihood of occuring.  When was the last time all of Humanity joined hands spontaneously in a show of Peace, Love & Understanding?  Talk about MIRACLES!  This is even bigger than Jeezus Walking on Water.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 02:41:46 PM

How do you propose to get the vast majority of the world which thinks Irrationally along with the small percentage of the population that thinks Rationally all to start thinking Arationally? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

Actually, I'm going deeper in my understanding even as we talk here.

And this turns out to be a really good question.

I can honestly say that I believe the single most irrational thing we humans have been doing is ... Attempting to ground our rationality overly much in rationality itself.  That is, without enough reference to embodied experience, awareness and presence (all of which are arational at root). 

In other words, we cannot solve our philosophical problems and conundrums "in our heads" -- divorced from a solid grounding in our soma (bodies).

Most traditional religions have a serious problem with "the flesh" -- human embodiment.  And our philosophies and even our sciences carry this over into the whole cultural body, or collective body (society, culture...).  So we have a collective distrustof feeling, of sensation, of eros, of aliveness itself.  The depth and outrageousness of this flight from embodiment only becomes apparent when we deliberately excavate our somatic awareness from the tomb in which our culture has encouraged us to bury it.  What makes sense to me will not make sense to others, because I sense my sense differently than they do.  My flesh is different. Is becoming different each day... as I return to my senses.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 02:46:01 PM
How do you propose to get the vast majority of the world which thinks Irrationally along with the small percentage of the population that thinks Rationally all to start thinking Arationally? ???  :icon_scratch:

I, of course, have no such magical powers.  We, however, do.  We are we. How many are we?  We are many and one.

I is really always we.  No I can exist independently, you see.  We will wake up together or not at all.  At present we are--metaphorically--asleep.

So you envision a spontaneous wake-up call for 7.3B Homo Saps simultaneously?  Or at least over say a 20 year timeline?

I don't think this has a high likelihood of occuring.  When was the last time all of Humanity joined hands spontaneously in a show of Peace, Love & Understanding?  Talk about MIRACLES!  This is even bigger than Jeezus Walking on Water.

RE

I do envision it, but don't expect it.

At least I know which direction to walk in.  I'll leave the outcome to unknowable mystery.  I know what to serve.  And then even that falls off into the mystery which is the call to "intimacy".  Sometimes I think I'm doing my life. Other times I suspect my life is doing me.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 02:52:06 PM
What makes sense to me will not make sense to others, because I sense my sense differently than they do.  My flesh is different. Is becoming different each day... as I return to my senses.

So the solution here is for everyone to sense things as you do, and then everything will make sense to everyone else?  Everyone will spontaneously love each other and love nature  in a great big global hug?

(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/love-your-mother-earth2.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 15, 2017, 03:02:01 PM
If the proposition that I (and everyone else) is not separate from nature is a "religious doctrine," so is the proposition that we are separate from nature -- and all world views are then -- at root -- religions.


Don't include me in your mental masturbation buckwheat....
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: Palloy2 on April 15, 2017, 03:40:18 PM
I wouldn't interject here if I thought you two were actually getting somewhere, but you are clearly not. Arational indeed.

The real problem with people is that they are easily led by others, and particularly by that magical group called leaders. 

Back in the days when it was done by word of mouth, church leaders preached, and Kings said things like "Once more unto the breach, dear friends!".  Then we moved on to the printed word, "These are the times that try men's souls".  Then radio, then TV, then the internet, and currently Facebook and Twitter.  People are easily fooled by their leaders into doing things (like going to war, with a high risk of death) they would never have been stirred to do by themselves.

This propensity must be rooted in our DNA.  I don't know how, but then I don't know what makes a newborn calf try to stand up either, or what makes young humans start to speak, yet it clearly happens.  DNA codes for behaviour just as much as it codes for arms and legs.  So the selection of an alternative DNA in the population's genotype is needed, but can't be brought about quickly or easily.

We are captives of our DNA, and sociopathic people tend to elbow their way up the power tree, become rich and influential, and control the media of the day to control what people think - who they will vote for, who they will hate, and what they will buy.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 03:48:41 PM
Back in the days when it was done by word of mouth, church leaders preached, and Kings said things like "Once more unto the breach, dear friends!".

We'll be back to the Good Old Daze in no time.

http://www.youtube.com/v/lEOOZDbMrgE

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 04:18:31 PM
What makes sense to me will not make sense to others, because I sense my sense differently than they do.  My flesh is different. Is becoming different each day... as I return to my senses.

So the solution here is for everyone to sense things as you do, and then everything will make sense to everyone else?  Everyone will spontaneously love each other and love nature  in a great big global hug?

(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/love-your-mother-earth2.jpg)

RE

Sense things as I do? Hell no. Sense things, yes.  Most humans are out to lunch.  They have sensations, yes, but mostly they dwell (as they imagine it) in their craniums... ideas, notions, theories, etc.  They do not know that they are not grounded in their senses.  They would think this is all a lot of crap, this speaking of the senses this way.  Sigh.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 04:21:05 PM
Most humans are out to lunch.

Well, at least we agree on that postulate.  :icon_sunny:

Given this condition, it's hard to see how any of your ideas are the least bit realistic.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 04:36:37 PM
Most humans are out to lunch.

Well, at least we agree on that postulate.  :icon_sunny:

Given this condition, it's hard to see how any of your ideas are the least bit realistic.

RE

You can draw a pretty obvious logical conclusion from this Agreed On Postulate.

1-  Most Homo Saps are Stupid.

2- Democracy can only work to Save the Planet if most Homo Saps were Smart.

3- Therefore, Democracy cannot work to Save the Planet.


RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 05:50:19 PM
The process of moving in the direction of sanity and health has its own virtues, independent of the question of whether other people will take that journey. 
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 05:52:18 PM
If the proposition that I (and everyone else) is not separate from nature is a "religious doctrine," so is the proposition that we are separate from nature -- and all world views are then -- at root -- religions.


Don't include me in your mental masturbation buckwheat....

Not to worry grasshopper.  I had no intention of including you in anything.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 06:05:19 PM
The process of moving in the direction of sanity and health has its own virtues, independent of the question of whether other people will take that journey.

I won't argue with that, but if you don't have some practical and realistic plan for using this to fix the problems of the planet on a very short timeline, you're just pissing in the wind.  The problem here and why I jump down on you all the time is you simply do not propose anything practical, you just propose a Woo-Woo solution where everyone spontaneously wakes up, grasps hands in a mutual outpouring of affeciton, intimacy, peace, love & understanding, and then we all live Happily Ever After.  The CFS in me has a hard time buying this sales pitch.  ::)

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 06:44:32 PM
The process of moving in the direction of sanity and health has its own virtues, independent of the question of whether other people will take that journey.

I won't argue with that, but if you don't have some practical and realistic plan for using this to fix the problems of the planet on a very short timeline, you're just pissing in the wind.  The problem here and why I jump down on you all the time is you simply do not propose anything practical, you just propose a Woo-Woo solution where everyone spontaneously wakes up, grasps hands in a mutual outpouring of affeciton, intimacy, peace, love & understanding, and then we all live Happily Ever After.  The CFS in me has a hard time buying this sales pitch.  ::)

RE

We're all blinded to some extent or another by our NOTIONS about things.  You, for example, clearly have a notion of me as a person with nearly zero CFS (common fucking sense - a notion with no traction but that's not my topic so I'll let it go).

Your notion of me is that I'm some sort of silly "New Age" naive fella who is wet behind both ears and who thinks waving a magic wand and thinking happy thoughts will change the world for the better.  More importantly, you, like most folks in this forum, still think I'm some sort of optimist -- even though I've explained over and over and blue in the face that I'm not and why I'm not, using the dictionary as a prop.  Whatever. Not my problem.

Once typical people get a hold or handle on a notion they hold onto it as if their life depended on it. (It has them more than they have it.) This, too, is not my problem. You have no handle on me.  I'm handle free.  (See if you can put a handle on that and be sure to bring your rocket launcher.)

http://www.youtube.com/v/nOjHior0RfU

In my world, causality is real, but not simple and not linear.  Enough said. Peace to you, brother.




Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 06:47:39 PM
You, for example, clearly have a notion of me as a person with nearly zero CFS

My primary notion of you is you don't provide any practical solutions to the problems faced by Homo Sap.  Peace to you as well.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 07:03:29 PM
You, for example, clearly have a notion of me as a person with nearly zero CFS

My primary notion of you is you don't provide any practical solutions to the problems faced by Homo Sap.  Peace to you as well.

RE

I invite you to look at yourself in the mirror and to say these same words, in all sincerity, to the image you see there.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 07:06:28 PM
No, really.  Even if you don't believe a word of it, I invite you to try it as an experiment in authenticity and sincerity.  If nothing comes of it, that's fine.  At least we ran the experiment, right?
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 07:15:18 PM
You, for example, clearly have a notion of me as a person with nearly zero CFS

My primary notion of you is you don't provide any practical solutions to the problems faced by Homo Sap.  Peace to you as well.

RE

I invite you to look at yourself in the mirror and to say these same words, in all sincerity, to the image you see there.

I do all the time.  It's why I founded and sponsor the SUN☼ Foundation.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 15, 2017, 07:17:27 PM
I Laugh When I Hear That The Fish In The Water Is Thirsty

I laugh when I hear that the fish in the water is thirsty.

You don’t grasp the fact that
what is most alive of all

is inside your own house; and so you walk from one holy city to the next
with a confused look!

Kabir will tell you the truth:
go wherever you like, to Calcutta or Tibet;
if you can’t find where your soul is hidden,
for you the world will never be real!

I don’t know what sort of a God reality/truth we have been talking about.
The caller calls in a loud voice to the Holy One at dusk.
Why? Surely the Holy One is not deaf.
He hears the delicate anklets that ring on the feet of an insect as it walks.

Go over and over your beads, paint weird designs on your forehead,
wear your hair matted, long, and ostentatious,
but when deep inside you there is a loaded gun [rocket launcher],
how can you have God peace/love/joy?

Kabir, from The Kabir Book: Forty-Four of the Ecstatic Poems of Kabir, versions by Robert Bly
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 16, 2017, 04:46:15 AM
Some people are taking this question and relating to their own personal peace. I see it as a question of mankind needs peace. I am afraid that is just a cry in the wilderness. We will never see world peace in our lifetime, or probably for many, many, lifetimes to come. As for personal peace, that is up to the individual to work out for themselves. Any claim to what philosophy and practice that brings that personal peace is some how universal, is a pipe dream. "You gotta walk that lonesome valley, you gotta walk it by yourself." If you find a bunch of people acting as though they believe the same thing, run like the devil from them. It is cancerous, and will delay you from "working out your own salvation."
Title: 12 Steps to a Practical & Achievable Program for a Better Tomorrow
Post by: RE on April 16, 2017, 07:19:18 AM
Just to let everyone know, I haven't dropped this topic.  I am working on a blog article response, 12 Steps to a Practical & Achievable Program for a Better Tomorrow.  :icon_sunny:

I was really butt-hurt  :( by the accusation from JRM I do not provide realistic and achievable means for the resurrection of our ecosystem and the improvement of the social organization of Homo Saps as a whole.   :(  I feel I have detailed these ideas extensively over the years, but they are pretty spread out through the database.  So in this upcoming article I try to provide a Reader's Digest version and consolidate in a compact nutshell in order to not be so falsely accused again.  :icon_sunny:

Probably up for next Sunday Brunch.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 16, 2017, 01:19:11 PM
Some people are taking this question and relating to their own personal peace. I see it as a question of mankind needs peace. I am afraid that is just a cry in the wilderness. We will never see world peace in our lifetime, or probably for many, many, lifetimes to come. As for personal peace, that is up to the individual to work out for themselves. Any claim to what philosophy and practice that brings that personal peace is some how universal, is a pipe dream. "You gotta walk that lonesome valley, you gotta walk it by yourself." If you find a bunch of people acting as though they believe the same thing, run like the devil from them. It is cancerous, and will delay you from "working out your own salvation."


You are correct sir.
It's an inside job. If your going to hide the truth.
Hide it in plain site, under your nose.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: John of Wallan on April 16, 2017, 02:50:59 PM
I just planted 2 avocado trees knowing full well that 75% of the fruit will be given away to others when it bears. Just like my 2 lemon trees, and a lot of our vege garden. My Father does this, as did his father before him; a migrant to Australia after the horrors of service in WW1.
I also know my trees should out live me by at least another  50 years, so in fact 99% of the fruit will be to benefit others.
This is one of my small ways I try to bring peace to the world. Might only be for my benefit; who knows. It works. Makes me feel good, and people appreciate a gift out of the blue and usually reciprocate.

Saying peace be with you is a similar gesture. I notice a few argument sending with this on the blog. Good. it takes the heat down a notch.

Sounds corny, but there are 2 simple and practical ways we can bring more peace to the world. Enough small actions will create change.

JOW
Title: Re: 12 Steps to a Practical & Achievable Program for a Better Tomorrow
Post by: JRM on April 16, 2017, 05:29:36 PM

I was really butt-hurt  :( by the accusation from JRM I do not provide realistic and achievable means for the resurrection of our ecosystem and the improvement of the social organization of Homo Saps as a whole.   :(  I feel I have detailed these ideas extensively over the years, but they are pretty spread out through the database.  So in this upcoming article I try to provide a Reader's Digest version and consolidate in a compact nutshell in order to not be so falsely accused again.  :icon_sunny:


Good grief Charley Brown. It was YOU, RE, who "accused" me of the very thing you feel I "accused" YOU of.  When in fact all I said was "say that  to yourself in the mirror and see how it feels for you" (to paraphrase).  I did not accuse you. YOU accused you.  Now you want to defend you -- but you think the defense is against me, not your own mirror.

If introspection of this kind causes a conceptual-emotional melt-down of some sort, I'd recommend trying it out a little more often.  Practice may not make perfect, but it does improve our game.  You're very, very hard on yourself, RE.  I recommend being kinder and gentler to YOU.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 16, 2017, 05:36:22 PM
Some people are taking this question and relating to their own personal peace. I see it as a question of mankind needs peace.

Aren't "personal peace" and "peace in the world" deeply intertwined? Woven together warp and woof?

War is only really possible where there is fear and hatred -- which are internal to individuals and social groupings, right?  I could not get out my rocket launcher and push the button to fire a rocket at "them" unless something is going on in me, right? 

If I'm at peace I'm very unlikely to go to war.  Right?
Title: Re: 12 Steps to a Practical & Achievable Program for a Better Tomorrow
Post by: RE on April 16, 2017, 06:00:35 PM

I was really butt-hurt  :( by the accusation from JRM I do not provide realistic and achievable means for the resurrection of our ecosystem and the improvement of the social organization of Homo Saps as a whole.   :(  I feel I have detailed these ideas extensively over the years, but they are pretty spread out through the database.  So in this upcoming article I try to provide a Reader's Digest version and consolidate in a compact nutshell in order to not be so falsely accused again.  :icon_sunny:


Good grief Charley Brown. It was YOU, RE, who "accused" me of the very thing you feel I "accused" YOU of.  When in fact all I said was "say that  to yourself in the mirror and see how it feels for you" (to paraphrase).  I did not accuse you. YOU accused you.  Now you want to defend you -- but you think the defense is against me, not your own mirror.

If introspection of this kind causes a conceptual-emotional melt-down of some sort, I'd recommend trying it out a little more often.  Practice may not make perfect, but it does improve our game.  You're very, very hard on yourself, RE.  I recommend being kinder and gentler to YOU.

I told you what I see in the mirror when I inspect myself. Founder & Patron of the SUN☼ Project for Building a Better Tomorrow.

In any event, I suggest waiting until I publish the 12 Steps before you shove your foot down your mouth any further.

RE
Title: Re: 12 Steps to a Practical & Achievable Program for a Better Tomorrow
Post by: JRM on April 16, 2017, 06:30:41 PM

In any event, I suggest waiting until I publish the 12 Steps before you shove your foot down your mouth any further.


It must be terrible to live your life in unending competition with others, as if life were a proving ground for your basic worth.   It must be even worse to have to get out your rocket launcher, and to deny that you're doing so, in this game of "who wins?".

You win.  Okay.  Whatever.
Title: Re: 12 Steps to a Practical & Achievable Program for a Better Tomorrow
Post by: RE on April 16, 2017, 06:36:57 PM

In any event, I suggest waiting until I publish the 12 Steps before you shove your foot down your mouth any further.


It must be terrible to live your life in unending competition with others

I'm not in unending competition with others, and my life is not terrible.  This is still more Ad Hom.  Do you never stop insulting people?  Is this the only way you can satisfy your ego?

RE
Title: Re: 12 Steps to a Practical & Achievable Program for a Better Tomorrow
Post by: JRM on April 16, 2017, 06:42:39 PM
Do you never stop insulting people?  Is this the only way you can satisfy your ego?

Mirror mirror on the wall....

Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 16, 2017, 06:46:57 PM
It was you, RE, who said " ... before you shove your foot down your mouth any further."

Do you honestly think that's not insulting, you who are so easily insulted?

I think you're so easily insulted because that which you accuse others -- such as myself -- of YOU ACCUSE YOURSELF OF.   But you don't do it in the light of conscious awareness, no. You do it in the dark.  You are shadow boxing.  And you think this makes you innocent.

It does not.

Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 16, 2017, 06:53:22 PM
In other worlds, stop being a total dick, RE.  Stop blaming others for your dickness.  It's not their fault. You're the dick.

If I am the Dick here, why is it only YOU I have a problem with? ???   :icon_scratch:  Conversations with the rest of the Diners are quite amenable.

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 17, 2017, 05:16:30 AM
Some people are taking this question and relating to their own personal peace. I see it as a question of mankind needs peace.

Aren't "personal peace" and "peace in the world" deeply intertwined? Woven together warp and woof?

War is only really possible where there is fear and hatred -- which are internal to individuals and social groupings, right?  I could not get out my rocket launcher and push the button to fire a rocket at "them" unless something is going on in me, right? 

If I'm at peace I'm very unlikely to go to war.  Right?

Somehow I knew you would bite. I practice a very similar routine as you, except it involves "no preaching", or trying convince others that "my" life style HAS to be adopted. It is a bit vain glorious thinking that my life style is saving the planet. Your not that special, but you come off as an expert in your notions. "those who know don't teach, those who don't know, teach." And a lot of them make quite a bit of money teaching all kinds of self-help methods. The practice of "I don't know", does not seem to be included in what you propose. I am very glad that you have found a path that keeps you connected to the universe and world each moment. I can't feel that humility in your posts. It is probably just me...and no big deal, but to answer your questions...

  To all your questions I would answer yes, you are helping create a peaceful world. I do it in much the same way, but I took it one step further.
I joined a community that is income sharing, and we stay below the poverty line, so we pay the Goberment no taxes. So that is best I could do to not support the way this Capitalistic nightmare operates, especially the military. If the time comes to take up arms in a civil war, I am angry enough to consider joining the fight. Otherwise I practice  "mind empty, heart open, body dancing."
  I hope your teaching others does not involve you getting paid for it. That will definitely skew any true complete communication. When I was in my "Bodhisattva" phase years ago I never excepted anything for communicating with others. For every one that lives here in the monastery it is the same way.
  RE is a very practical bear. Where his rubber meets the road, it better be well thought out, and practical ways to make our planet work/survive.
Many people who regularly post on this forum are very broadminded, have a good sense of their own path, and live a life style that will help make our planet and people work together to bring about peace as fast as possible. We are all doing the best we can.   
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 17, 2017, 05:47:08 AM
  I hope your teaching others does not involve you getting paid for it. That will definitely skew any true complete communication. When I was in my "Bodhisattva" phase years ago I never accepted anything for communicating with others. For every one that lives here in the monastery it is the same way.

I work for a non-profit educational organization which offers classes, sessions, workshops and retreats with various teachers, some local and some not.   Our policy is to give whatever we offer as a gift, when possible. When our costs make this impossible we sometimes offer our workshops or retreats within a sliding scale fee system with a very low bottom end, which is further modified by requests for donations to our scholarship fund. I'm an administrator, and one of the organization's founders, so I get to make decisions.  No one is ever turned away for lack of funds.  And, no, I do not get paid to teach. Our organization has never brought in enough money -- yet -- for me to earn a salary.  I am not motivated by money in the least.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 17, 2017, 06:04:51 AM
  And, no, I do not get paid to teach. Our organization has never brought in enough money -- yet -- for me to earn a salary.

So how do you earn your daily bread?

RE
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: luciddreams on April 17, 2017, 06:53:08 AM
Some people are taking this question and relating to their own personal peace. I see it as a question of mankind needs peace.

Aren't "personal peace" and "peace in the world" deeply intertwined? Woven together warp and woof?

War is only really possible where there is fear and hatred -- which are internal to individuals and social groupings, right?  I could not get out my rocket launcher and push the button to fire a rocket at "them" unless something is going on in me, right? 

If I'm at peace I'm very unlikely to go to war.  Right?

Somehow I knew you would bite. I practice a very similar routine as you, except it involves "no preaching", or trying convince others that "my" life style HAS to be adopted. It is a bit vain glorious thinking that my life style is saving the planet. Your not that special, but you come off as an expert in your notions. "those who know don't teach, those who don't know, teach." And a lot of them make quite a bit of money teaching all kinds of self-help methods. The practice of "I don't know", does not seem to be included in what you propose. I am very glad that you have found a path that keeps you connected to the universe and world each moment. I can't feel that humility in your posts. It is probably just me...and no big deal, but to answer your questions...

  To all your questions I would answer yes, you are helping create a peaceful world. I do it in much the same way, but I took it one step further.
I joined a community that is income sharing, and we stay below the poverty line, so we pay the Goberment no taxes. So that is best I could do to not support the way this Capitalistic nightmare operates, especially the military. If the time comes to take up arms in a civil war, I am angry enough to consider joining the fight. Otherwise I practice  "mind empty, heart open, body dancing."
  I hope your teaching others does not involve you getting paid for it. That will definitely skew any true complete communication. When I was in my "Bodhisattva" phase years ago I never excepted anything for communicating with others. For every one that lives here in the monastery it is the same way.
  RE is a very practical bear. Where his rubber meets the road, it better be well thought out, and practical ways to make our planet work/survive.
Many people who regularly post on this forum are very broadminded, have a good sense of their own path, and live a life style that will help make our planet and people work together to bring about peace as fast as possible. We are all doing the best we can.

Very cool Knarf! 

We are blessed to have you on the Diner. 

I'm also interested to know how JRM makes his daily bread.  I've been busier than a one legged man in an ass kickin' contest with work lately.  That's a good thing to, cause I've got bills coming out the wazoo.  The more money I make the more money I owe.  It's crazy.  Some days I wonder what the point of it is?  How can people live their entire lives working for the man and never have enough money at the end of it all?  I would have bit a bullet by now if I was still slaving away for the man. 

At least I am following my bliss to the money.  There is purpose there.  I've just built my first bamboo fence.  It's about 40 linear feet.  I used upwards of 50 canes to build it.  I'll try to find the time to upload pics of it and start a bamboo thread.  I've also got to get GM to get the video from my bamboo presentation handled.  Tomorrow I have another event to attend preaching about the utility and need of bamboo.  Then in May we have the Mother Earth News festival in Asheville. 

I love bamboo!  Consequently there is much peace to be found inside of a bamboo grove.  Shakuhachi inside of a grove is literally transcendent.  I have become a bamboo person.  There is a saying attributed to an ancient Chinese painter that goes something like this, "if you want to paint bamboo you must become one of them." 
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 17, 2017, 08:59:08 AM
Some people are taking this question and relating to their own personal peace. I see it as a question of mankind needs peace.

Aren't "personal peace" and "peace in the world" deeply intertwined? Woven together warp and woof?

War is only really possible where there is fear and hatred -- which are internal to individuals and social groupings, right?  I could not get out my rocket launcher and push the button to fire a rocket at "them" unless something is going on in me, right? 

If I'm at peace I'm very unlikely to go to war.  Right?

Somehow I knew you would bite. I practice a very similar routine as you, except it involves "no preaching", or trying convince others that "my" life style HAS to be adopted. It is a bit vain glorious thinking that my life style is saving the planet. Your not that special, but you come off as an expert in your notions. "those who know don't teach, those who don't know, teach." And a lot of them make quite a bit of money teaching all kinds of self-help methods. The practice of "I don't know", does not seem to be included in what you propose. I am very glad that you have found a path that keeps you connected to the universe and world each moment. I can't feel that humility in your posts. It is probably just me...and no big deal, but to answer your questions...

  To all your questions I would answer yes, you are helping create a peaceful world. I do it in much the same way, but I took it one step further.
I joined a community that is income sharing, and we stay below the poverty line, so we pay the Goberment no taxes. So that is best I could do to not support the way this Capitalistic nightmare operates, especially the military. If the time comes to take up arms in a civil war, I am angry enough to consider joining the fight. Otherwise I practice  "mind empty, heart open, body dancing."
  I hope your teaching others does not involve you getting paid for it. That will definitely skew any true complete communication. When I was in my "Bodhisattva" phase years ago I never excepted anything for communicating with others. For every one that lives here in the monastery it is the same way.
  RE is a very practical bear. Where his rubber meets the road, it better be well thought out, and practical ways to make our planet work/survive.
Many people who regularly post on this forum are very broadminded, have a good sense of their own path, and live a life style that will help make our planet and people work together to bring about peace as fast as possible. We are all doing the best we can.


Leave it better than you found it....
Plant the seed, the fruit will blossom in natures time, not mine.

Knarf, your teachings & mine are so parallel ....
Your faith & my recovery movement are so in step with each other.
Have you reviewed the I-Ching ?


JRM, please share an overview of your workshop material.
I'm just giddy as a sophomore school girl over your teachings.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: knarf on April 17, 2017, 09:40:04 AM
AZ asks me "Have you reviewed the I-Ching ?" First, yea, I love the way you express life, and glad to see that you recognize our similarities. Quite the perceptive question! I reviewed, studied and read most everything I could on it and used the I-Ching as my main "spiritual friend" for well over ten years. I still throw the coins occasionally when things get ruff around here. It is always amazing to me how the I-Ching I cast seems to answer the shit I am asking it. LOL
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 17, 2017, 11:47:44 AM
I don't have anything to offer to giddy schoolgirls.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 17, 2017, 11:49:26 AM
AZ asks me "Have you reviewed the I-Ching ?" First, yea, I love the way you express life, and glad to see that you recognize our similarities. Quite the perceptive question! I reviewed, studied and read most everything I could on it and used the I-Ching as my main "spiritual friend" for well over ten years. I still throw the coins occasionally when things get ruff around here. It is always amazing to me how the I-Ching I cast seems to answer the shit I am asking it. LOL

When we mutably mesh the I-Ching & our 64 genome spiral it's a match made in the cosmos.
All I do is contemplate on the higher resonance levels & my day flows like the ebb & flow of the tide.
We Creator Beings, "Man" if you will can accomplish anything as long as our resonance is in tune with physical Universe.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 17, 2017, 11:51:25 AM
I don't have anything to offer to giddy schoolgirls.

Don't be a poser....
Moriarty was a poser & look where he is. Outside looking in !
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: JRM on April 17, 2017, 11:55:43 AM
You know what they say about pearls.  They are bright and shiny, and I'm going on a very long walkabout.
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: azozeo on April 17, 2017, 12:01:57 PM
You know what they say about pearls.  They are bright and shiny, and I'm going on a very long walkabout.

There's a similarity between AAA & AA....
Title: 12 Step Plan for a Better Tomorrow on Planet Earth
Post by: RE on April 17, 2017, 01:08:13 PM
The Plan is finished!  :icon_sunny:

Since this a HOT TOPIC right now, I've decided to shift around my publication schedule and publish it tomorrow rather than waiting for Sunday Brunch.

It's a complete & comprehensive plan covering everything from Education to Medicine to Economics to Population Overshoot to Goobermint to Spirituality and more!

COMING TOMORROW TO A LAPTOP NEAR YOU!

RE
Title: Re: 12 Step Plan for a Better Tomorrow on Planet Earth
Post by: azozeo on April 17, 2017, 01:35:10 PM
The Plan is finished!  :icon_sunny:

Since this a HOT TOPIC right now, I've decided to shift around my publication schedule and publish it tomorrow rather than waiting for Sunday Brunch.

It's a complete & comprehensive plan covering everything from Education to Medicine to to Economics to Population Overshoot to Goobermint to Spirituality and more!

COMING TOMORROW TO A LAPTOP NEAR YOU!

RE


12 steps on Taco Tuesday ! I like it  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: We need peace
Post by: RE on April 17, 2017, 01:38:19 PM
You know what they say about pearls.

So now you are calling us Swine?  That's an Ad Hom argument.

RE