Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 1:58 am The sad part about this for me is the fact that modern culture as a whole has sacrificed the desire to feel the psychological connection between no-thing and every-thing. It just looks down enchanted by technology while losing the power of attention necessary to look up. It demands to be given Barabbas. The crowd cannot tolerate Simone Weil or those who feel the need to become human.

I don't think it's sad, in the sense it's all they've ever known, as part of their cultural conditioning from cradle to grave. And to be fair, it's all a perfect expression of oneness anyway. Me thinks. There is nothing wrong with how people choose to express their beings.

The thing is, if you walked up to someone of modern cultural conditioning today ..and said to them ''......why have you sacrificed the desire to feel the psychological connection between no-thing and every-thing....why do you prefer to look down enchanted by technology while losing the power of attention necessary to look up....'' ......they'd just look at you like you'd just escaped from a looney bin.

Point is, no one does that do they. No one really cares about anything but themselves and how they are feeling.

People wake up in their own time when it is necessary for them to do so, when life evolves that awakening to happen for them. Consciousness is playing every character simultaneously...and not one of those characters is not meant to be. No one is sacrificing anything when they are just living in their own little ego tunnel, which they are more than entitled to do as authors of their own story.
For example some people just enjoy being a miserable sloth and feel comfortable and happy being like that, as long as they are not harming any one else they can live as they desire, for it's no one elses business anyway.

If all our movies on netflix or at the cinema were ALL of ''One Genre'' only, then would we bother watching? ..it's the play of yin and yang and the MULTIPLE diversity of life that gives it it's value, which makes it interesting, purposeful and meaningful.

Just because someone like me believes that life is just a dream dreamt by no one...doesn't mean I believe other people do not have the permission to be human, of course they do.

Just my opinion anyway.

.

DaM

you are concerned with beliefs and people believe whatever they want as long as they don't hurt each other.

I'm concerned with the eventual realization (not belief) that the truths of religion and science are complimentary. I know how violently these ideas are rejected and seculrism protects itself. the secular Intolerance thread proved that. Certain ideas must be rejected to maintain the supremacy of secularism.
but there is a minority who work discover this truth which makes it possible for Man to become himself. Consider this excerpt from the preface to Jacob Needleman's book "Lost Christianity"

.......But in fact, no such assumption of moral authority by secular humanism, has
taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the
world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war along with
the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all
at once project humanity’s essence-immorality onto the
entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness and the global
disintegration of the normal patterns of life
that have guided mankind for millenia. Neither the secular philosophies
of our epoch nor its theories of human nature—pragmatism, positivism,
Marxism, liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism,
psychoanalysis–nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor offer wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzingly new ethical problems.
What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

A new understanding of Man and of God?? Pass the hemlock! Is such understanding possible? Yes. I know of those who pursue it. But it is only for the minority who sense the obvious and the absurdity and futility of fighting windmills and need to open to more.

Believe what you want but I am interested in those who know how to verify and what it means to "Know Thyself."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pm

I'm concerned with the eventual realization (not belief) that the truths of religion and science are complimentary.

Yes, yes they are.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pm I know how violently these ideas are rejected and seculrism protects itself.

Perhaps it's because seculrism doesn't want to believe that religion and science are complimentary. Well not until it is realised they are.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pm the secular Intolerance thread proved that. Certain ideas must be rejected to maintain the supremacy of secularism.

Agreed, especially while beliefs are believed to exist. Then all sorts of beliefs can enter through the mind.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pmbut there is a minority who work discover this truth which makes it possible for Man to become himself.

I concur.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pmConsider this excerpt from the preface to Jacob Needleman's book "Lost Christianity"

.......But in fact, no such assumption of moral authority by secular humanism, has
taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the
world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war along with
the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all
at once project humanity’s essence-immorality onto the
entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness and the global
disintegration of the normal patterns of life
that have guided mankind for millenia. Neither the secular philosophies
of our epoch nor its theories of human nature—pragmatism, positivism,
Marxism, liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism,
psychoanalysis–nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor offer wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzingly new ethical problems.
What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

I get it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pmA new understanding of Man and of God?? Pass the hemlock! Is such understanding possible? Yes. I know of those who pursue it. But it is only for the minority who sense the obvious and the absurdity and futility of fighting windmills and need to open to more.

God is patient, he waits for everyone to catch up because God already knows those behind will catch up and return because there is nowhere else to wander but back to thyself.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pmBelieve what you want but I am interested in those who know how to verify and what it means to "Know Thyself."

I know what you mean.

I'm just not interested in anyone else but God either.

DaM

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pm
Believe what you want but I am interested in those who know how to verify and what it means to "Know Thyself."


I know what you mean.

I'm just not interested in anyone else but God either.
Top

This can be taken wrongly

Jesus',mission for descending into the world was to awaken those sensitive to what was offered, This doesn't mean he was against the darkness of the world. He just offered to bring the light. It is caring beyond our comprehension to invite the crucifixion to experience his conscious physical death as the world threw everything at him. It is what made the resurrection possible,

The rare person who acquires a human soul is capable of receiving a quality of energy from above and giving it to below. It serves the potential for conscious evolution and the transition of the old man into the New Man. A person cannot serve God by denying the universal purpose of helping developing consciousness.

The secular traditions seek to serve Man's physical needs while the esoteric traditions serve man by providing the means to become oneself. Neither is bad. Finding ones goal is the first step. It raises a serious biblical and philosophical question: how does a person balance these two masters?

Matthew 6;24

No man can serve two masters: for either he
will hate the one, and love the other; or else
he will hold to the one, and despise the other,
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:00 am DaM

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pm
Believe what you want but I am interested in those who know how to verify and what it means to "Know Thyself."


I know what you mean.

I'm just not interested in anyone else but God either.
Top

This can be taken wrongly

Not when it’s taken rightly.

We can only know the God of our own understanding.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 7:38 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:00 am DaM

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:13 pm
Believe what you want but I am interested in those who know how to verify and what it means to "Know Thyself."


I know what you mean.

I'm just not interested in anyone else but God either.
Top

This can be taken wrongly

Not when it’s taken rightly.

We can only know the God of our own understanding.

True but if our understanding insults the scientific mind we cannot rely on it. It isn't easy to find what nourishes both mind and heart and open to the contemplation of our lack of uderstanding.

Suppose the universe is a living machine. We know that cars and computers are dead machines. Cars have the purpose of taking us where we want to go and computers have the purpose of increasing fragmentation.

What is the difference between the dead machine of a computer and the living machine of our universe? What quality of our reason makes it possible to contemplate this question? How do we organize our thoughts to make it possible to include the wholeness of a living universe with the ability for fragmentation of a dead computer? How can we open to the question rather than fight it to defend our opinions.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:05 pm Suppose the universe is a living machine. We know that cars and computers are dead machines. Cars have the purpose of taking us where we want to go and computers have the purpose of increasing fragmentation.

What is the difference between the dead machine of a computer and the living machine of our universe? What quality of our reason makes it possible to contemplate this question? How do we organize our thoughts to make it possible to include the wholeness of a living universe with the ability for fragmentation of a dead computer? How can we open to the question rather than fight it to defend our opinions.

The universe is a machine, and we are the bacteria that roam about inside.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 6:14 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:05 pm Suppose the universe is a living machine. We know that cars and computers are dead machines. Cars have the purpose of taking us where we want to go and computers have the purpose of increasing fragmentation.

What is the difference between the dead machine of a computer and the living machine of our universe? What quality of our reason makes it possible to contemplate this question? How do we organize our thoughts to make it possible to include the wholeness of a living universe with the ability for fragmentation of a dead computer? How can we open to the question rather than fight it to defend our opinions.

The universe is a machine, and we are the bacteria that roam about inside.

Is the universe a living or a dead machine? We know the purpose of the dead car and a computer and that it serves us but what is the purpose of this unique living machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:10 pm
True but if our understanding insults the scientific mind we cannot rely on it.

Nick you cannot insult any mind unless they give you permission to do so. I take my cue from God not man. I was born to be like this.

All we can do is be true to oursleves. To thy own self be true and your life will become effortless and meaningful with purpose, as only you are the author of your own story.

I've personally never relied on anyone but my own commonsense, and intuitive knowing. I've also discovered along the way, that there is no such thing as mistake, for every mistake has been a very important lesson, every stumble is our teacher.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:10 pmIt isn't easy to find what nourishes both mind and heart and open to the contemplation of our lack of uderstanding.

I just think the problem lies in the fact that we have a left and right brain thinking. Some are more prone to leaning toward left brain thinking than they are right brain thinking. We're each on a unique never to be reapeated journey, I have never bothered about what the rest of the millions of minds are thinking or doing with their lives, I only ever think for myself....especially when it comes to the subject of a metaphysical philosophical nature.

However, within the story of duality...I have to participate in that play dynamic as I have no other choice, but one thing I have learnt to do, is to leave other people be to be themselves, exactly as they see them self and their world in which they too are participating in.




We come to this forum because we like sharing our stories with each other, else there would be no option or platform to do so. That's all we are doing here is sharing our unique stories about reality as we each and individually see it from the unique lens of our perception.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 8:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 6:14 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:05 pm Suppose the universe is a living machine. We know that cars and computers are dead machines. Cars have the purpose of taking us where we want to go and computers have the purpose of increasing fragmentation.

What is the difference between the dead machine of a computer and the living machine of our universe? What quality of our reason makes it possible to contemplate this question? How do we organize our thoughts to make it possible to include the wholeness of a living universe with the ability for fragmentation of a dead computer? How can we open to the question rather than fight it to defend our opinions.

The universe is a machine, and we are the bacteria that roam about inside.

Is the universe a living or a dead machine?

Neither. A thing that is not living cannot be known as dead, unless it was alive before. The universe is not alive and not dead.

We know the purpose of the dead car and a computer and that it serves us but what is the purpose of this.....

Cars and computers were designed FOR a purpose.
You are confusing terms.

... unique living

not living

machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Not even a question.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 8:58 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:10 pm
True but if our understanding insults the scientific mind we cannot rely on it.

Nick you cannot insult any mind unless they give you permission to do so. I take my cue from God not man. I was born to be like this.

All we can do is be true to oursleves. To thy own self be true and your life will become effortless and meaningful with purpose, as only you are the author of your own story.

I've personally never relied on anyone but my own commonsense, and intuitive knowing. I've also discovered along the way, that there is no such thing as mistake, for every mistake has been a very important lesson, every stumble is our teacher.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:10 pmIt isn't easy to find what nourishes both mind and heart and open to the contemplation of our lack of uderstanding.

I just think the problem lies in the fact that we have a left and right brain thinking. Some are more prone to leaning toward left brain thinking than they are right brain thinking. We're each on a unique never to be reapeated journey, I have never bothered about what the rest of the millions of minds are thinking or doing with their lives, I only ever think for myself....especially when it comes to the subject of a metaphysical philosophical nature.

However, within the story of duality...I have to participate in that play dynamic as I have no other choice, but one thing I have learnt to do, is to leave other people be to be themselves, exactly as they see them self and their world in which they too are participating in.




We come to this forum because we like sharing our stories with each other, else there would be no option or platform to do so. That's all we are doing here is sharing our unique stories about reality as we each and individually see it from the unique lens of our perception.

DaM

We can be true to ourselves but what is myself? Take a person with a scientific mind who listens to all sorts of fantasy and says to himself “do they really think I can swallow this?” That is what is meant by insult. Now what of the mystical person who has had experiences the scientific mind cannot understand and is scoffed at by the secular community. Both the man of science and of religion have limited themselves to one piece of the truth. Does being true to oneself require remaining one sided or can the religious and scientific mind become capable of understanding each other? Is it against God’s will to better ones understanding by first admitting their limitations. They may sense that the laws of science are true as is the essence of religion. If both are true and I don’t understand it, the problem is “myself” so seek the means to open to reality.

I agree some are primarily right brained attracted to fragmentation while others are left brained and attracted to wholeness or the source of fragmentation. Is there a way they can respect and learn from what the other offers so as to become objectively normal

You seem to believe that the best solution is to go with the flow: I’m OK and You’re OK. Yet others can come to realize that I’m an idiot and You’re an idiot. Which is more true: the former or the latter.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:56 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 8:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 6:14 pm

The universe is a machine, and we are the bacteria that roam about inside.

Is the universe a living or a dead machine?

Neither. A thing that is not living cannot be known as dead, unless it was alive before. The universe is not alive and not dead.

We know the purpose of the dead car and a computer and that it serves us but what is the purpose of this.....

Cars and computers were designed FOR a purpose.
You are confusing terms.

... unique living

not living

machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Not even a question.

Sculptor

Neither. A thing that is not living cannot be known as dead, unless it was alive before. The universe is not alive and not dead.

Is the universe a living machine? It would be an interesting topic but could not work where secularism is dominant and it would be shouted down. There is a lot of info on the idea from different sources. For example:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-livi ... r_b_665400

Cars and computers were designed FOR a purpose.
You are confusing terms.

Science has learned what the universe does: its purpose. We know it transforms substances through the processes of involution and evolution functioning by laws. However science doesn’t know why? If it was designed by laws for a purpose it must have had a conscious source. Laws do not appear by accident. But contemplating an ineffable conscious source is offensive to the modern descent into fragmentation so only a few are open to the question and idolatry rules the day

machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Not even a question.

It isn’t a question for the secular mind which has limited itself to the facts of the world. However it is a great question for the universal mind concerned with universal values which arise from influences originating from a higher level of reality and beyond the world

NICK
“”I agree some are primarily right brained attracted to fragmentation while others are left brained and attracted to wholeness or the source of fragmentation. Is there a way they can respect and learn from what the other offers so as to become objectively normal””


Response:

Yes....but how or when or why they would do this I personally cannot know...I can only know how my own mind works.

For me, I have a natural empathetic nature and can automatically sense if a person is a pure hearted person, call it intuition or whatever, who knows...I can also smell a rat, an evil person....the latter I tend to reject and avoid like the bubonic plague.

I don’t know what else to say about this Nick. I can alway know a god person, and same applies to knowing a devilish person. And so if I can discern between the two opposites and know them for what they really are...then so can everyone else...if they choose to do so, the choice to follow god or the devil is gods unconditional love for himself...which is every self...no matter what that self chooses to be. We make our bed and lie in it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 4:29 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:56 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 8:17 pm

Is the universe a living or a dead machine?

Neither. A thing that is not living cannot be known as dead, unless it was alive before. The universe is not alive and not dead.

We know the purpose of the dead car and a computer and that it serves us but what is the purpose of this.....

Cars and computers were designed FOR a purpose.
You are confusing terms.

... unique living

not living

machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Not even a question.

Sculptor

Neither. A thing that is not living cannot be known as dead, unless it was alive before. The universe is not alive and not dead.

Is the universe a living machine? It would be an interesting topic but could not work where secularism is dominant and it would be shouted down. There is a lot of info on the idea from different sources. For example:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-livi ... r_b_665400

Depak Chopra.
REALLY???
Oh please!

Cars and computers were designed FOR a purpose.
You are confusing terms.

Science has learned what the universe does: its purpose.

Rubbish.
Science is all about description. The universe has no purpose and science is the last discipline that would claim to think there was one.
I really do not know what planet you inhabit.
The question is without merit.

We know it transforms substances through the processes of involution and evolution functioning by laws. However science doesn’t know why? If it was designed by laws for a purpose it must have had a conscious source.

if... if.. if, followed by a false conclusion.

Laws do not appear by accident.

No they are what human use to try to describe what is there already.

But contemplating an ineffable conscious source is offensive to the modern descent into fragmentation so only a few are open to the question and idolatry rules the day

machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Not even a question.

It isn’t a question for the secular mind which has limited itself to the facts of the world. However it is a great question for the universal mind concerned with universal values which arise from influences originating from a higher level of reality and beyond the world

Even if the question were valid. On what basis would we recognise the answer?