Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote:... Where is Simone when I need her?

In the hell for suicides presumably.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pmMan made Christendom asserts a ready made soul. Buddhism asserts no soul. I side with those who believe in the seed of the soul.

Are you sure your issue is with secularism? Surely a far bigger problem is the vast bulk of humanity that adhere to religions which state that your beliefs are wrong.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pmIt makes logical sense.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with whether it is true. Consider this:
All gleeks are frupulent.
Boswick is a gleek.
Therefore Boswick is frupulent.
It makes perfect logical sense; the problem is we don't know whether there really is a gleek called Boswick, nor what frupulence is. You can create an entire narrative based on Boswick the frupulent gleek and, if you have a mind to, imbue her with supernatural powers and create a religion. The whole thing could be logically coherent; the trick is not to get carried away and mistake coherence for truth. Fundamentally, that is what post-modernism recommends we do. It is a very bad idea.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pm

So a bit like a character. Is there any evidence that "a soul" survives the destruction of the body it was once associated with?

This is like a person never having seen an oak tree saying that there is no way this came from an acorn.

Well, no it isn't, because you haven't shown me the acorn. Still, if that is an analogy you comfortable with you could consider the beliefs of Akhenaten to be the monotheistic acorn from which has grown not only a tree, but an entire forest. Many developments of the theme make logical sense (none of them perfectly) and there are plenty of people who accept the initial premise and maybe a couple which were added later: that god sent his son to die for our sins, or an angel to communicate his wishes, for example; tweak it so that it makes enough logical sense to satisfy them and then believe it to be true.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pmWe are familiar with the human animal man and speculations about the potential spirit body must seem absurd.

Not really, I think most people can understand the hypothesis that mind and body are different things. Nor is there anything absurd about speculating that mind, spirit and soul refer to the same thing. What's absurd is the conviction with which some people insist their own speculations are true. As you say:

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pmWhen the animal body dies we cannot know what survives it.

But there is no compelling evidence that anything survives it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pmThere are actually people who would OK a partial birth abortion but as soon as the head pops out this same person would consider killing it murder. Why? Because the law says so.

Where is that actually the law?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pmAll this means is that we have forgotten how to reason in the full meaning of the word and justify our idiocy as progressive thinking.

I guess you assume that if only we could all remember how to reason properly, we'd all agree with you. Well, if you can persuade me that your premises are true and your logic faultless, I for one accept that I will have no option but to agree with you.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pmWhere is Simone when I need her?

Is it her premises or logic you are missing?

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:48 pm Nick, excluding yourself, and without pointing to some vague and tortured reference to it in the Bible that you personally believe suggests such a thing, please provide me with a list of names of all “those” (implying the existence of others like you) who believe in the “seed of the soul.”
_______

Seeds, I would like to know why there seems to be conflicting understanding between your God theory and Nicks God theory?

Does seeds not believe in the ''seeds of the soul'' ? ...and why have you chosen the avatar ''seeds''?

.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:30 amYou wrote that “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” However you forgot about Man’s devolution into “them” The soul of Man on earth is now a potential

I totally get this Nick.

Man has to shed the snake skin into rebirth, the second coming ...you are doing well Nick, honestly, you can explain this far better than me, and I am so happy you are here talking about this @ PN forum.

.

I'm always a bit wary of getting too close ..friendly... with other posters on any forum, because forum posters have huge egos to defend, they are here for one reason only, to get their point of view across ... opposition is not on their agenda...human reasoning always reminds me of the following story ........


A scorpion asks a frog to carry him over a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, both would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog then agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both.
When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

Beware the wolves in sheep clothing Nick.


.

'' If you break open a seed there is no tree inside, there is only spirit; living energy, in the form of potential.Ultimately, the seed, the sprout, the tree, and we as humans don't exist as absolute static objects, but as an ephemeral embodiment of spirit in this lifetime. ''

Uwot

Are you sure your issue is with secularism? Surely a far bigger problem is the vast bulk of humanity that adhere to religions which state that your beliefs are wrong.

The essence of secularism is its psychological restriction to one level of reality. It has many representatives psychologically, politically, and religiously. The one thing they all have in common is their logical restriction to the world as the psychological center. All else is just blind faith, superstition, or fantasy. My concern is for the effect of the closed mind on future generations with the potential to become normal and acquire a universal rather than a secular perspective.

the trick is not to get carried away and mistake coherence for truth. Fundamentally, that is what post-modernism recommends we do. It is a very bad idea.

Agreed. The question becomes how to verify. A person can become disappointed in what they have always accepted as true. They seek to experience higher understanding. I’ve read the search described as the science of idiocy. A person comes to experience that they are an idiot as compared to higher understanding. They tell their friends who now think they is are idiot for thinking such things. Now the person is a perfect idiot and capable of evolving beyond preconceptions and opening their minds to a conscious perspective.

Well, no it isn't, because you haven't shown me the acorn.

You misunderstood the analogy. The acorn consists of an outer shell or husk and a kernel of life within which has the potential to become an oak. We look at an acorn and see the husk just as we look at a person and witness their personality. We don’t know the potential for the inner man since it lives within the personality or outer man just like the kernel of life exists within the husk of the acorn. The essence of life of the kernel can leave the shell under the right circumstances and become an oak. A person can leave the restrictions of their acquired personality and become a human being. It is our potential.

But there is no compelling evidence that anything survives it.

There is no compelling evidence that you have experienced. Perhaps there are those alive and dead who have experienced what you are yet to experience. The problem is how to keep the question open rather than becoming a psychological victim of blind denial.

Where is that actually the law?

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b1 ... ttati.html

In the continuing debates on the legality and morality of abortion, "partial birth" abortions have become a hot topic. What exactly is a partial birth abortion? Nebraska state legislation defines it as "an abortion procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing delivery" (1). While this definition may be fine for legal purposes, it still does not address the actual procedures; we still do not know what an actual partial birth abortion procedure entails.
The most common procedure is called Intact Dilation and Evacuation, or D&E. D&E involves dismembering the fetus inside the uterine cavity and then pulling it out through the already dilated cervix (1) . Another less common, but more controversial method is the dilation and extraction method, or D&X. This procedure requires a woman to take medication several days in advance to dilate the cervix. Once the cervix has dilated, she returns to complete the procedure. When she returns, the physician turns the fetus around in the uterus so that it is positioned feet first, and then delivers the fetus until only the head remains inside the mother's body. At this point, the physician punctures the base if the skull and suctions out the contents of the fetus' head, causing the skull to collapse. The dead fetus is then removed from the woman's body (2). In each case the head (or more) is left inside the woman's body because in order for a birth to have occurred under common law the head of the fetus must leave the mother's body. Under the current interpretation of the United States Constitution, a person must be born in order to be protected by the government, so by leaving the head in the mother's body the procedure is considered to be legally viable

This is considered human reasoning. The head must leave the body before it is considered a baby.

I guess you assume that if only we could all remember how to reason properly, we'd all agree with you. Well, if you can persuade me that your premises are true and your logic faultless, I for one accept that I will have no option but to agree with you.

No, you refer to conclusions. I am referring to the process of human as opposed to linear dualistic reasoning. Modern society is losing the ability for human reason while becoming more skilled in dualistic associative thought. Rather than how to provoke agreement through indoctrination, the question is how to consciously verify for those needing to transcend absurdity?

Is it her premises or logic you are missing?

I miss her incredible grasp of deductive logic and its ability to put science into a human conscious perspective.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:15 pmThe essence of secularism is its psychological restriction to one level of reality. It has many representatives psychologically, politically, and religiously. The one thing they all have in common is their logical restriction to the world as the psychological center. All else is just blind faith, superstition, or fantasy. My concern is for the effect of the closed mind on future generations with the potential to become normal and acquire a universal rather than a secular perspective.

Generally people mean the separation of church and state when they talk about secularism, others loosely equate 'secularism' with atheism. Your definition is neither of those, so is bound to cause confusion. 'Secularism', as I take you to mean it, is not restricted to atheism, but is any belief that restricts its adherents "to one level of reality". As I understand, you believe there is a concerted effort by a collective of psychologists, politicians and religious leaders to indoctrinate people into particular ways of thinking, for reasons I'm not clear about. This collective, you refer to as 'The Great Beast'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:15 pm

But there is no compelling evidence that anything survives it.

There is no compelling evidence that you have experienced. Perhaps there are those alive and dead who have experienced what you are yet to experience. The problem is how to keep the question open rather than becoming a psychological victim of blind denial.

That's not actually a problem. If I do experience compelling evidence, then I will be compelled and whatever level of reality is revealed I will thenceforth accept. The real problem, as I see it, is how learning how to find and interpret evidence rather than becoming a psychological victim of confirmation bias. Consider this:

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:15 pm

Where is that actually the law?

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b1 ... ttati.html

...Under the current interpretation of the United States Constitution, a person must be born in order to be protected by the government, so by leaving the head in the mother's body the procedure is considered to be legally viable[/b]

This is considered human reasoning. The head must leave the body before it is considered a baby.

At the top of the page linked to it says: "This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations." There is also a link to the course outline, from which we learn that it is "a one-semester introductory biology course at Bryn Mawr College, fall semester, 2003." http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/ None of which means the information is wrong, but look at the date. I suspect the question was asked in response to this: "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (enacted November 5, 2003) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion," referred to in medical literature by as intact dilation and extraction." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-B ... on_Ban_Act
The question was:

Where is that actually the law?

The answer, in part, is nowhere in the USA. I very much doubt it is legal anywhere, other than in exceptional circumstances. Good news, Nick_A; you have one less thing to worry about.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:15 pm...the question is how to consciously verify for those needing to transcend absurdity?

Well, if that's the question, how do you propose to answer it?

Uwot

Generally people mean the separation of church and state when they talk about secularism, others loosely equate 'secularism' with atheism. Your definition is neither of those, so is bound to cause confusion. 'Secularism', as I take you to mean it, is not restricted to atheism, but is any belief that restricts its adherents "to one level of reality". As I understand, you believe there is a concerted effort by a collective of psychologists, politicians and religious leaders to indoctrinate people into particular ways of thinking, for reasons I'm not clear about. This collective, you refer to as 'The Great Beast'.

I accept the Merriam Webster definition of secular:

a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal.
• Secularconcerns

Secularism is not an intentional reaction though it is often intentionally defended by blind belief. Secularism is the result of the loss of the collective ability to sustain conscious attention necessary to reason as a human being as opposed to an atom of the Great Beast. Simone Weil explains

http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/weil.html

In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.

“Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.”

Individuals losing the power of human reasoning and the quality of conscious attention to enable it, relies on the state to define values.

According to Weil, the person's accession to society, the individual's renunciation of values to the collective as defined by a small group, is based on ignorance and fear, fear that without society (which is to say the state), people will collapse into crime and evil. The social and collective is seen as transcending individuals, as a supernatural entity from which nationalism and war is as normal as science, progress, and consumption. All of these evils are taking place simultaneously in a social context. The individual has probably never reflected on these issues at all, never acknowledged his or her degree of complicity in this system. But, say the apologist for the Great Beast, the individual need have no direct responsibility,

“The collective is the object of all idolatry, this it is which chains us to the earth. In the case of avarice, gold is the social order. In the case of ambition, power is the social order.”

Society itself becomes God: The Great Beast reigns supreme over its glorious collectives.

That's not actually a problem. If I do experience compelling evidence, then I will be compelled and whatever level of reality is revealed I will thenceforth accept. The real problem, as I see it, is how learning how to find and interpret evidence rather than becoming a psychological victim of confirmation bias. Consider this:

What evidence would it take for you to accept justice as an eternal value? If you cannot, does that mean it doesn’t exist?

The link to partial birth abortion indicates that since we don’t value the life cycle, secular law is required to define the value of life. All this means is that we have lost the capacity for human reason and relies on legl representatives of the Great Best to define values. We have people arguing if it is OK to kill a baby as long as its head is in the womb. The conclusion is not the issue. The fact that it is argued indicates what we have become. It would be more reasonable if a panel of experts debated if a man walking around with his head up his ass can be considered human, it would make for a more meaningful debate.

..the question is how to consciously verify for those needing to transcend absurdity?
Well, if that's the question, how do you propose to answer it?

The first step is for a person to admit that even though I know facts, “I know nothing” as Socrates said. At the same time the person is drawn to “understanding.” Without that beginning, everything remains on the same faulty foundation so nothing changes. A person must become capable of freedom from the defense of secular psychological limitations and open to a universal human perspective and what Einstein called the “cosmic man.”

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:48 pm Nick, excluding yourself, and without pointing to some vague and tortured reference to it in the Bible that you personally believe suggests such a thing, please provide me with a list of names of all “those” (implying the existence of others like you) who believe in the “seed of the soul.”

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:34 pm Seeds, I would like to know why there seems to be conflicting understanding between your God theory and Nicks God theory?

Does seeds not believe in the ''seeds of the soul'' ? ...and why have you chosen the avatar ''seeds''?

Dam, no offense intended, but the fact that you even ask that question makes it clear that you do not fully understand either of our theories.

Because if you did understand, then you would realize that hidden within Nick’s pious and mystical sounding rhetoric is the thoroughly nihilistic proposition that perhaps 99.999% of all humans who have ever awakened into life on earth are doomed to eternal oblivion (i.e., non-existence).

On the other hand, what I am proposing is the exact opposite of that.

I strongly suggest that 100% of all of humanity is in possession of eternal life, wherein each of us will experience a forever evolving and “fruitful” purpose within the context of a higher dimension of reality.

Now I am not insisting that I am right and Nick is wrong, for we could both be hopelessly delusional (something of which many of the members of the forum would no doubt agree with ).

However (and without getting into the finer details of our contrasting use of the seed metaphor), the difference between our two speculative theories could not be starker.
_______

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:30 am You wrote that “The first man Adam was made a living soul.”

First of all, I didn’t write it, the authors of the Bible wrote it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:30 am However you forgot about Man’s devolution into “them” The soul of Man on earth is now a potential

I didn’t forget about anything, Nick, for there has been no “devolution” of Man.

That is nothing more than circular reasoning on your part in support of your own personal theory.

In my opinion, you have taken humanity’s general inability to comprehend the reason for its and the universe’s existence...

(as per the consequences of residing in Plato’s cave)

...and then wrongfully attributed the problem to some kind of “fall” from a more elevated status.

For the umpteenth time, Nick, there has been no “fall” of man in the way you have been suggesting.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:30 am

Genesis 1:

7 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Right,...

Genesis 2 wrote: “...and man became a living soul...”

...and not, according to you, an “animal-like” creature imbued with a precursory “seed-like” quality consisting of some kind of latent “potentiality” that through an intense and arduous personal effort on the part of “animal man” (doing God knows what), might someday “kick-in” and allow him to become an actual soul...

...(are you paying attention, Dam?).

In which case, I am quite confused as to why you would provide quotes from the Bible that support my argument and not yours.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:58 pm Dam, no offense intended, but the fact that you even ask that question makes it clear that you do not fully understand either of our theories.

I'm never offended by anything that comes out of the human mind. My only interest in life is God's mind.

It's obviously clear to me that both you and Nick have seen God in your own unique way, I'm not talking literally here, but that you both know God in your hearts is enough for me, I don't have to understand how you know or see your God...that is totally your own private business.


It is obvious to me that every human being will each see God in their own totally unique way...well at least those that want to see God that is...so once one has seen God, it really doesn't matter how one puts that experience into words, after all, it's their own unique vision that has been their direct experience. No one else has accessible knowledge of another persons private experience of God.

No one can overrule what is essentially another persons vision. No one has exclusive authority to be able to judge whether someones vision of God is the right or wrong vision..there's no right or wrong way to see God. It's ridiculous to even think that...all we can do is share what we are seeing with what other people are seeing.. in that there will either be resonate or not...we take what is of value and reject what is not..that's all there is to it.

I follow Nicks musings closely and have never found them to be anywhere near misleading at all. I agree with Nick that unless there is a quickening into full blown awakening, humans will not know eternal life. I also believe that the whole purpose of the universe was to become aware of itself, through evolution and devolution has to be a part of that dynamic toward ultimate realisation as and through the mind body mechanism that is the human consciousness. So I totally get what Nick is talking about...although I'm fairly sure he has no idea what I'm waffling on about half the time, but that's because I can only describe my own experience of God.

I'm not really too clued up on worldly or political affairs because I've never really been that interested in human mind games. I've been able to see straight through the human mind game, and the lies and delusions they like to entangle themselves in since I was about 3 years old..Sometimes I actually believe I'm from another dimension, and that I have come to earth from another galaxy for a specific reason, but lets not go there .

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:58 pmBecause if you did understand, then you would realize that hidden within Nick’s pious and mystical sounding rhetoric is the thoroughly nihilistic proposition that perhaps 99.999% of all humans who have ever awakened into life on earth are doomed to eternal oblivion (i.e., non-existence).

Well to be fair, I've never actually seen Nick say or think that, but even if he did or has, I would probably agree with that assertion. To me that's the whole purpose of evolution is to return to God status...else we stagnate and just endlessly repeat the same old patterns of thinking and being.

This planet earth is a preschool at the moment, probably not even reached that stage, it's probably still suckling on mummies teat stage.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:58 pmOn the other hand, what I am proposing is the exact opposite of that.

I strongly suggest that 100% of all of humanity is in possession of eternal life, wherein each of us will experience a forever evolving and “fruitful” purpose within the context of a higher dimension of reality.

I agree, we are all the seeds of God, we are inseparable from God. There is no relationship or sacrifice except in the dream of separation...which has to be in order to experience all the wonders that come with being a living breathing being. The fall is essential because we cannot know our above from our below without the dual aspect of God which is the split mind of knowledge of opposites..aka the immaterial material ...the immortal mortal.
In other words, everyone is already God...everyone is already awakened, but in order to know awakening, one has to know sleep as well, it could not work any other way. And what's even more amazing is the realisation that NO ONE IS AWAKE OR ASLEEP....there's just eternal life that never sleeps, there is absolutely no break, or missing part, in the perfect symmetry that is beingness life living itself without beginning nor end.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:58 pmNow I am not insisting that I am right and Nick is wrong, for we could both be hopelessly delusional (something of which many of the members of the forum would no doubt agree with ).

However (and without getting into the finer details of our contrasting use of the seed metaphor), the difference between our two speculative theories could not be starker.
_______

But that's absolutely fine, many authors appear here writing stories no one ever writ...But the reader is always and ever the SAME ONE..aka GOD

It's all HIS-STORY....history.

.

Remember not to take your role too personally, there is no one behind your eyeballs looking out called seeds.... there is only one looker looking out of every single eye ball..right now, that looker is experiencing the story of seeds from the perspective of that body mind mechanism...it's just a unique one off never to be repeated ''experience'' of the ONE and ONLY.

But that's just the way this one here sees itself...I'm not discounting other peoples seeing, or saying that's the only way to see God.

.

There is a state Beyond the state of 'Knowing' and 'Not Knowing'. We must understand that 'Knowing' and 'Not Knowing' pertain to the Mind.

But our Essential Essence is from a land beyond the Mind. It's the land of the Impenetrable Unknowable. It's of great value.
You - this aliveness right now wouldn't have been possible without that great value.

.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:10 pmSecularism is not an intentional reaction though it is often intentionally defended by blind belief.

Blind belief in what?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:10 pmWhat evidence would it take for you to accept justice as an eternal value? If you cannot, does that mean it doesn’t exist?

I have already said:

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:04 amI have no objection to the idea of 'justice' being an eternal value...

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:10 pmA person must become capable of freedom from the defense of secular psychological limitations and open to a universal human perspective and what Einstein called the “cosmic man.”

What evidence would it take for you to accept that I am open to a universal human perspective? Must I agree with your beliefs to be open to them?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:16 am What evidence would it take for you to accept that I am open to a universal human perspective? Must I agree with your beliefs to be open to them?

Your boxing with shadows, this is not the way to go about it.

There are two perspectives..on the human level...aka aspects of SELF..aka knowing...one is of the mind heart of direct knowing(intuition)... and the other is of the intellectual egoic mind of the head.(imagined)


There's nothing true coming from the head which is always in conflict with it's heart source self. Real knowing truth comes from the centre, the heart, the original source itself.

.

You don't need to seek approval of others or seek the answers outside yourself. You have all the answers within you already.


Nick is only discussing ideas, not asking for approval of them.

We can only share what is experiential to us, we have no idea what others know, nor can we ever experience their experience.
.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:28 am Unlike christianity which has declared that all babies are born in original sin, and that any who die prior to baptism will burn in hell for eternity.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:07 am That’s an excellent point, uwot, and one that I have given a lot of thought to in the past.

-1- wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:16 pm I've addressed that point some time ago, and suggested immediately afterward, that human embrioes be baptized before birth and before abortion.

Many Christian theists jumped on me and said that is impossible.

Why did they say it is impossible?

I mean, what aspect of your suggestion would be impossible according to these alleged Christians?
_______

Uwot

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:10 pm
Secularism is not an intentional reaction though it is often intentionally defended by blind belief.

Blind belief in what?

Blind belief that the source of objective human meaning and purpose initiates in the World

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:10 pm
What evidence would it take for you to accept justice as an eternal value? If you cannot, does that mean it doesn’t exist?

I have already said:
uwot wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:04 am
I have no objection to the idea of 'justice' being an eternal value...

If objective human meaning and purpose does not initiate from the World, it must have a universal origin. What IYO is the source responsible for the actualization of eternal values including justice?

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:10 pm
A person must become capable of freedom from the defense of secular psychological limitations and open to a universal human perspective and what Einstein called the “cosmic man.”

What evidence would it take for you to accept that I am open to a universal human perspective? Must I agree with your beliefs to be open to them?

It isn’t a matter of agreeing with me but of revealing an open minded attitude. All you would have to do is agree that the secular perspective and its limitations to subjective values is insufficient to answer the ancient questions of the heart which have inspired both the search and the love of wisdom emanating from the domain of objective universal truth as opposed to arising from the World as subjective secular opinions.