Why America can never be great again.

[Lacewing]

…

C'mon Nick...you asked for someone to explain the logic of there being no objective value and meaning beyond humans, and I did that.

That logic is not contingent on your ideas about Simone, or those who "are hated because they seek the light", or the founding principles of America!

This just shows that you ask for things that you have no intention of considering beyond the stories you identify yourself with. Why even pretend that you have any real interest in the logic of anything else?

[Nick_A]

Dubious

We live according to our values. But the universe isn't human and has nothing to do with any humanistic conceptions of objective, subjective or other value structures created within an infinitesimal part of it.

I don't expect you to believe what follows but at least you may be open to why people believe as they do. I'm referring to the question of "being". What is being according to theory? What is the being of a mineral as compared to a plant as compared to an animal as compared to a human being? Is there a great chain of being which provides an objective scale of value? What is the objective value of a plant as compared to an animal?

If the universe is structured on the great chain of being, the links of the chain provide the source of universal meaning and the objective values which enable them to function as an interacting whole.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God.............................

As I said I'm not asking you to believe in the Great Chain of Being. I do say that anyone with a sincere interest in philosophy as the love of wisdom and the need for meaning at some point has to confront the great question of "being" Without it existence is absurd and this is unacceptable for both the scientific and religious mind

[Nick_A]

…

C'mon Nick...you asked for someone to explain the logic of there being no objective value and meaning beyond humans, and I did that.

That logic is not contingent on your ideas about Simone, or those who "are hated because they seek the light", or the founding principles of America!

This just shows that you ask for things that you have no intention of considering beyond the stories you identify yourself with. Why even pretend that you have any real interest in the logic of anything else?

You explained it very well. You said that since there is no objective meaning or objective values we are free to create our own reality. I see the logic in it but this logic is insufficient to satisfy a deeper need which "feels" the reality of objective meaning.

[Lacewing]

You explained it very well. You said that since there is no objective meaning or objective values we are free to create our own reality.

Thanks...that's not actually what I said, but I think this is an interpretation you are familiar with. Here's what I will add, also in response to the following that you said:

I see the logic in it but this logic is insufficient to satisfy a deeper need which "feels" the reality of objective meaning.

So, I'm glad you see the logic, as it appeared that you could not see it at all in your original post that I was responding to. As for it being insufficient to satisfy a deeper need -- that is a very honest statement that explains why humans create/believe the things they do: they NEED them and are served by them... for one reason or another. I think it can be very powerful to keep this in mind while creating/living as we do. To be able to say, "I am being served by this right now".

I wasn't speaking about "creating your own reality" -- I was pointing to the concept that >what we think< is based on our limited human awareness/perspective, and there is no reason to conclude that such limited awareness/perspective could know of value and meaning beyond itself and throughout the Universe.

We can create and believe whatever we need/want in the moment -- or for chapters of our lives, or for years and years -- and it is our trip/adventure/experience, full of value and meaning for ourselves. We don't need to declare some kind of Universal significance to it -- nor do we need to assign a god or belief for OTHER people to be judged/disapproved by -- so I typically challenge the motives behind that.

[Dubious]

If the universe is structured on the great chain of being...

It's not. Again, what does the universe have to do with imagined constructs of hierarchies? It's a thoroughly human ancient/medieval construct overloaded with all sorts of theistic components and implications as common in those days.

...the links of the chain provide the source of universal meaning and the objective values which enable them to function as an interacting whole.

...for us only and only in those times. It was a subjective conclusion based on everything they knew which wasn't much. Everything created by humans is subjective; when externalized and agreed upon only then does it assume an aura of objectivity. These SEEMING dichotomies exist mostly as mental juxtapositions between inner and outer perspectives.

I do say that anyone with a sincere interest in philosophy as the love of wisdom and the need for meaning at some point has to confront the great question of "being". Without it existence is absurd and this is unacceptable for both the scientific and religious mind.

If you say so; you have the right to create your mythical values if it makes life easier. But others may not feel the need to confront the great question of Being or in any way feel religious about it; neither does the scientific mind concern itself with values. Their values lie in what is discovered, not imagined.

Nevertheless there are beautiful descriptions of it as in the following. (Now it's my turn to quote)

Alexander Pope and The Great Chain of Being

See, through this air, this ocean, and this earth,
All matter quick, and bursting into birth.
Above, how high, progressive life may go!
Around, how wide! how deep extend below?
Vast chain of being! which from God began,
Natures ethereal, human, angel, man,
Beast, bird, fish, insect, what no eye can see,
No glass can reach; from Infinite to thee,
From thee to nothing. On superior powers
Were we to press, inferior might on ours:
Or in the full creation leave a void,
Where, one step broken, the great scale’s destroyed:
From Nature’s chain whatever link you strike,
Tenth or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike.
And, if each system in gradation roll
Alike essential to the amazing whole,
The least confusion but in one, not all
That system only, but the whole must fall.
Let earth unbalanced from her orbit fly,
Planets and suns run lawless through the sky;
Let ruling angels from their spheres be hurled,
Being on being wrecked, and world on world;
Heaven’s whole foundations to their centre nod,
And nature tremble to the throne of God.
All this dread order break—for whom? for thee?
Vile worm!—Oh, madness! pride! impiety!

[Nick_A]

Dubious

If you say so; you have the right to create your mythical values if it makes life easier. But others may not feel the need to confront the great question of Being or in any way feel religious about it; neither does the scientific mind concern itself with values. Their values lie in what is discovered, not imagined.

Nevertheless there are beautiful descriptions of it as in the following. (Now it's my turn to quote)


Alexander Pope and The Great Chain of Being

See, through this air, this ocean, and this earth,
All matter quick, and bursting into birth.
Above, how high, progressive life may go!
Around, how wide! how deep extend below?
Vast chain of being! which from God began,
Natures ethereal, human, angel, man,
Beast, bird, fish, insect, what no eye can see,
No glass can reach; from Infinite to thee,
From thee to nothing. On superior powers
Were we to press, inferior might on ours:
Or in the full creation leave a void,
Where, one step broken, the great scale’s destroyed:
From Nature’s chain whatever link you strike,
Tenth or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike.
And, if each system in gradation roll
Alike essential to the amazing whole,
The least confusion but in one, not all
That system only, but the whole must fall.
Let earth unbalanced from her orbit fly,
Planets and suns run lawless through the sky;
Let ruling angels from their spheres be hurled,
Being on being wrecked, and world on world;
Heaven’s whole foundations to their centre nod,
And nature tremble to the throne of God.
All this dread order break—for whom? for thee?
Vile worm!—Oh, madness! pride! impiety!

Their values lie in what is discovered, not imagined.

How do you make the transition between imagination and truth? Can you speculate on why a unique link in the chain of being would have a specific objective value?

Here is an explanation of Pope's essay. If you agree with it you are agreeing with me that the universe is not an accidental creation, If you don't you have to make it clear why it must be fantasy because it includes God and the idea that Man has a place in the universal structure.

https://greatchainofbeing.wordpress.com ... pes-essay/

Pope was an English poet of the 18th century. The Great Chain of Being was a vital part of his philosophical writing called The Essay On Man. This piece deals with the acceptance of man’s position in the Great Chain, and a review of man’s position in a finite and divinely organized universe.


“Is the great chain, that draws all to agree,
And drawn supports, upheld by God, or Thee?”
(From “An Essay on Man”)
“Then say not Man’s imperfect, Heav’n in fault;
Say rather, Man’s as perfect as he ought.”
(From “An Essay on Man”)

“All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”
(From “An Essay on Man”)

It states that God has a plan for each rung and it is the role of man to submit and accept this fact. It is made clear that man has to recognize that he is but a small part of a complex and ordered universe. He cannot and does not know God’s purposes therefore he cannot complain of his position in the divine ladder, and must understand his ‘imperfection’ that places him there.

Pope also addresses the fact that science and its unquenchable thirst brings about misery to man as he cannot seem to find all the answers. In order to attain happiness, man must submit to the natural order or God’s Will for him in the Great Chain, rather than make the assumption that science gives complete understanding of everything. The universe may be imperfect to man, yet all these imperfections make it a perfect whole, as perfect universe must include within it all the imperfect aspects in harmony and symmetry as well.

Pope’s essay is a reminder that while science was advancing and giving man the power of imitating God, he still has not, cannot move from his set place in the Great Chain and should not question God’s plan.

“And, Spite of pride in erring reason’s spite, / One truth

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

I wasn't speaking about "creating your own reality" -- I was pointing to the concept that >what we think< is based on our limited human awareness/perspective, and there is no reason to conclude that such limited awareness/perspective could know of value and meaning beyond itself and throughout the Universe.

True, but there is no reason to assume that Man cannot consciously acquire the ability to "understand" universal meaning and purpose. Perhaps through the power of intuition we may experience anamnesis and remember our objective meaning and purpose. Why blindly believe or blindly deny? Why not become consciously open to our potential to "remember?"


We can create and believe whatever we need/want in the moment -- or for chapters of our lives, or for years and years -- and it is our trip/adventure/experience, full of value and meaning for ourselves. We don't need to declare some kind of Universal significance to it -- nor do we need to assign a god or belief for OTHER people to be judged/disapproved by -- so I typically challenge the motives behind that.

Why don't you consider this creating your own reality or, if you prefer, allowing your own reality to be created by transient external circumstances?

[Lacewing]

there is no reason to assume that Man cannot consciously acquire the ability to "understand" universal meaning and purpose.

There is no reason to think it's necessary. It seems rather ridiculous and pointless (to me) for limited physical humans to "acquire" such an ability -- why would there be any need for a limited being in a physical reality to know and operate so vastly far beyond that? How does that even make sense?

Perhaps through the power of intuition we may experience anamnesis and remember our objective meaning and purpose.

Why would we need to do that? Doesn't it seem more logical that even if there were such a thing, forgetting it was part of the agreement for coming here into this physical realm? It's like a goldfish wanting to know what's outside the bowl -- what's the point; he can't make use of it or exist there anyway.

Nick, I think that when people basically live for "what's beyond this", they are essentially turning up their nose at this life experience, and missing a great deal that perhaps they felt drawn here for! Why do we think we have to "get back" to something? We'll die soon enough.

We can create and believe whatever we need/want in the moment -- or for chapters of our lives, or for years and years -- and it is our trip/adventure/experience, full of value and meaning for ourselves. We don't need to declare some kind of Universal significance to it -- nor do we need to assign a god or belief for OTHER people to be judged/disapproved by -- so I typically challenge the motives behind that.

Why don't you consider this creating your own reality...

Well sure, but that's not what my point was...as I've already said. I was hoping you would hear what I was saying and not just jump to some familiar interpretation/idea that skips over the point.

[Dubious]

Dubious

If you say so; you have the right to create your mythical values if it makes life easier. But others may not feel the need to confront the great question of Being or in any way feel religious about it; neither does the scientific mind concern itself with values. Their values lie in what is discovered, not imagined.

Nevertheless there are beautiful descriptions of it as in the following. (Now it's my turn to quote)


Alexander Pope and The Great Chain of Being

See, through this air, this ocean, and this earth,
All matter quick, and bursting into birth.
Above, how high, progressive life may go!
Around, how wide! how deep extend below?
Vast chain of being! which from God began,
Natures ethereal, human, angel, man,
Beast, bird, fish, insect, what no eye can see,
No glass can reach; from Infinite to thee,
From thee to nothing. On superior powers
Were we to press, inferior might on ours:
Or in the full creation leave a void,
Where, one step broken, the great scale’s destroyed:
From Nature’s chain whatever link you strike,
Tenth or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike.
And, if each system in gradation roll
Alike essential to the amazing whole,
The least confusion but in one, not all
That system only, but the whole must fall.
Let earth unbalanced from her orbit fly,
Planets and suns run lawless through the sky;
Let ruling angels from their spheres be hurled,
Being on being wrecked, and world on world;
Heaven’s whole foundations to their centre nod,
And nature tremble to the throne of God.
All this dread order break—for whom? for thee?
Vile worm!—Oh, madness! pride! impiety!

Their values lie in what is discovered, not imagined.

How do you make the transition between imagination and truth? Can you speculate on why a unique link in the chain of being would have a specific objective value?

Here is an explanation of Pope's essay. If you agree with it you are agreeing with me that the universe is not an accidental creation, If you don't you have to make it clear why it must be fantasy because it includes God and the idea that Man has a place in the universal structure.

https://greatchainofbeing.wordpress.com ... pes-essay/

Pope was an English poet of the 18th century. The Great Chain of Being was a vital part of his philosophical writing called The Essay On Man. This piece deals with the acceptance of man’s position in the Great Chain, and a review of man’s position in a finite and divinely organized universe.


“Is the great chain, that draws all to agree,
And drawn supports, upheld by God, or Thee?”
(From “An Essay on Man”)
“Then say not Man’s imperfect, Heav’n in fault;
Say rather, Man’s as perfect as he ought.”
(From “An Essay on Man”)

“All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”
(From “An Essay on Man”)

It states that God has a plan for each rung and it is the role of man to submit and accept this fact. It is made clear that man has to recognize that he is but a small part of a complex and ordered universe. He cannot and does not know God’s purposes therefore he cannot complain of his position in the divine ladder, and must understand his ‘imperfection’ that places him there.

Pope also addresses the fact that science and its unquenchable thirst brings about misery to man as he cannot seem to find all the answers. In order to attain happiness, man must submit to the natural order or God’s Will for him in the Great Chain, rather than make the assumption that science gives complete understanding of everything. The universe may be imperfect to man, yet all these imperfections make it a perfect whole, as perfect universe must include within it all the imperfect aspects in harmony and symmetry as well.

Pope’s essay is a reminder that while science was advancing and giving man the power of imitating God, he still has not, cannot move from his set place in the Great Chain and should not question God’s plan.

“And, Spite of pride in erring reason’s spite, / One truth

I'm not going to repeat myself over & over. I made myself clear on the various subjects mentioned and have nothing further to add.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:37 am
there is no reason to assume that Man cannot consciously acquire the ability to "understand" universal meaning and purpose.

There is no reason to think it's necessary. It seems rather ridiculous and pointless (to me) for limited physical humans to "acquire" such an ability -- why would there be any need for a limited being in a physical reality to know and operate so vastly far beyond that? How does that even make sense?

You’ve raised the interesting and important question of aspiration. Why do we work for results not directly connected to the necessities of life? We strive for a lot of material goods having nothing to do with the necessities of life. Why bother?

Nietzsche said we suffer from wretched contentment. Is it pointless to strive for supremacy in the world?

Man has a need to experience meaning. Initially it comes from things in the world. Then, for some, it becomes insufficient. They aspire to experience meaning that doesn’t arise in the world. They seek the pearl of great price.

Matthew 13:45-46 New International Version (NIV)
45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

This is the highest form of human aspiration. Is there anything you are attracted to that would be worth selling everything you have in the world to acquire?

You may say of course not. It is all meaningless and we create our own reality. A minority may feel the attraction to the pearl of great price. Are they just delusional fools or maybe just aware of what most in the world are not?

[Lacewing]

Matthew 13:45-46 New International Version (NIV)
45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

This is the highest form of human aspiration. Is there anything you are attracted to that would be worth selling everything you have in the world to acquire?

You may say of course not. It is all meaningless and we create our own reality. A minority may feel the attraction to the pearl of great price. Are they just delusional fools or maybe just aware of what most in the world are not?

I do not identify any ACTUAL division/separateness in regard to what I can/cannot access -- so, for me, there is no separation from "the pearl", as you put it -- there is nowhere "to go", nothing to "quest after", and nothing "to pay". Already being part of it, you're aware of it or you're not. (Do you quest after the heart that beats in your chest? Sometimes you're aware of your heart... sometimes you're not... doesn't really matter... it is always part of your life. Creating stories about it isn't necessary -- you can pay attention to it anytime.)

Humans CREATE the concepts of separateness, and then say they seek to cross those DIVIDES! Then they might say they've crossed "the divide", and others should too! When the concept of separateness was imagined by humans in the first place. Wholeness is natural and constant (why wouldn't it be?) -- human stories create separateness and obscure wholeness from view.

Ideas of seeking "beyond the world" seem to suggest that the world it not part of absolute perfection (or whatever concept/symbolism one might use). What would be the reason to cast the world as some inferior, SEPARATE space? Truly, why would there be ANY separation (except that which is imagined by the limited minds of humans)? If one can't see wholeness anywhere and everywhere, where do they think they must go to see/experience it?

[Nick_A]

Matthew 13:45-46 New International Version (NIV)
45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

This is the highest form of human aspiration. Is there anything you are attracted to that would be worth selling everything you have in the world to acquire?

You may say of course not. It is all meaningless and we create our own reality. A minority may feel the attraction to the pearl of great price. Are they just delusional fools or maybe just aware of what most in the world are not?

I do not identify any ACTUAL division/separateness in regard to what I can/cannot access -- so, for me, there is no separation from "the pearl", as you put it -- there is nowhere "to go", nothing to "quest after", and nothing "to pay". Already being part of it, you're aware of it or you're not. (Do you quest after the heart that beats in your chest? Sometimes you're aware of your heart... sometimes you're not... doesn't really matter... it is always part of your life. Creating stories about it isn't necessary -- you can pay attention to it anytime.)

Humans CREATE the concepts of separateness, and then say they seek to cross those DIVIDES! Then they might say they've crossed "the divide", and others should too! When the concept of separateness was imagined by humans in the first place. Wholeness is natural and constant (why wouldn't it be?) -- human stories create separateness and obscure wholeness from view.

Ideas of seeking "beyond the world" seem to suggest that the world it not part of absolute perfection (or whatever concept/symbolism one might use). What would be the reason to cast the world as some inferior, SEPARATE space? Truly, why would there be ANY separation (except that which is imagined by the limited minds of humans)? If one can't see wholeness anywhere and everywhere, where do they think they must go to see/experience it?

We have a basic difference which which often becomes intolerable. The problems and animosity it causes occur both in real life and online. It concerns the concept of hierarchy. Secularism limits it to what happens on our planet. It understands it as:

a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.

Secularism has no trouble appreciating that some people are better than others at a given skill so more meaningful. A Miss America contest is an attempt to establish a hierarchy of female beauty. Of course all of this is relative and subjective.

The concept of hierarchy for someone like me is not limited to our world. It exists as a universal constant and defines one quality of being in relation to the quality of being existing below and above it. Hierarchy is a measure of the medium of being. A universal hierarchy doesn't deny wholeness. The origin of the universe is wholeness, ONE, but the universe is a structure built upon lawful fractions of the whole

The scale of being which defines the universal hierarchy doesn't exist for you since you see it all as the same. While for me it explains objective human meaning and purpose.

When people believed the world was flat, those who objected were mocked. It is the same with the concept of universal hierarchy. The concept is considered absurd for all those caught up with the limitations of worldy hierarchy. The universe as a hierarchy must be ridiculed in the same way those not believing in the flat earth must be ridiculed.

America was founded on the idea that people need the freedom to explore the great philosophical and religious questions. That is why a state religion could not be allowed. Yet America has adopted a new state religion called secularism. it is the religion of the Great Beast and it has established the dominant hierarchy of the world and everything else as meaningless. It is a jealous god and does not tolerate being threatened so America can never be great again.

[Lacewing]

Secularism has no trouble appreciating that some people are better than others at a given skill so more meaningful. Of course all of this is relative and subjective.

I know you like blaming the concept of secularism for a lot of things, but it's delusional to treat it like an entity.

The concept of hierarchy for someone like me is not limited to our world.

Is your concept ALSO relative and subjective?

It exists as a universal constant and defines one quality of being in relation to the quality of being existing below and above it.

Still part of a human concept, yes?

The scale of being which defines the universal hierarchy doesn't exist for you since you see it all as the same. While for me it explains objective human meaning and purpose.

Do you see how your quest for meaning and purpose drives you to create stories and judge people based on that? Does that sound right?

When people believed the world was flat, those who objected were mocked. It is the same with the concept of universal hierarchy.

No it's not. One is a verifiable physical human reality, and the other is a concept beyond human perception/understanding. Why do you tangle concepts to so often paint yourself as some sort of divine martyr or victim who is ridiculed? You must really love such stories!

The concept is considered absurd for all those caught up with the limitations of worldy hierarchy.

You know, theists are caught up in the limitations of worldly hierarchy too, yet they believe in some kind of universal hierarchy. Your efforts to separate people into neat little groups that can be judged is inaccurate.

The universe as a hierarchy must be ridiculed in the same way those not believing in the flat earth must be ridiculed.

Actually, Nick... you are the one expressing a very rigid and limited view of the Universe, by applying a human structure to it. THAT is like believing in a flat earth, my friend!

America has adopted a new state religion called secularism. it is the religion of the Great Beast and it has established the dominant hierarchy of the world and everything else as meaningless. It is a jealous god and does not tolerate being threatened so America can never be great again.

See, this is where you go off the rails. And this is why you might be mocked and laughed at. Your ideas do not ring of a complete and perfect spiritual nature throughout all -- they clank like thin rusty chimes that were cobbled together by a bitter person who wants to justify narrow-minded, self-serving thinking. Wouldn't it be awesome if you were walking down the street and looked into the eyes of a homeless atheist person and you were suddenly filled with complete awareness that you and he are the same, and all is perfect and as it should be? In that moment you could feel absolute love for everything/everyone. Countless people experience such a thing, from all walks of life (theist/non-theist doesn't matter), and the sense is that it's naturally right there all the time, available to be seen. Have you ever had such an experience? If so, did you credit it to theism... and why would it be limited to that? Can you imagine spiritual nature outside of theism, or does that blow your whole platform/identity/purpose?

Can you accept that the Universe is vastly broader than the definitions and models you place onto it?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

I know you like blaming the concept of secularism for a lot of things, but it's delusional to treat it like an entity.

Why blame? Secularism is a psychological result from being closed to the universe for what it is including its meaning and purpose. Secularism is just the result of limiting the mind to affairs of the world at the expense of acquiring a universal perspective.

Is your concept ALSO relative and subjective?

I’ve been given a hypothesis - a skeleton of the universe. I am invited to affirm or deny it based on efforts to have the experience of oneself – know thyself. This practice allows me to put meat on the bones of this skeleton so as to see how it works. You have drawn conclusions while I am contemplating and verifying the skeleton.

Do you see how your quest for meaning and purpose drives you to create stories and judge people based on that? Does that sound right?

I didn’t create the hypothesis you call a story. I agree with Plato that collective Man is asleep in Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall. People have been mocked, ridiculed, and even killed for understanding the reality of the human condition so I am well aware why you are compelled to react as you do. It is insulting. As I’ve said my concern is for the young who are still alive inside and capable of becoming more than a creature trapped in reaction. That is why the great ideas must be kept alive in the world.

Actually, Nick... you are the one expressing a very rigid and limited view of the Universe, by applying a human structure to it. THAT is like believing in a flat earth, my friend!

Would it surprise you to learn that man is a mini universe. It is basic cosmological idea. That is why when a person becomes able to know thyself they also witness a universe in action. The problem is that as we are, we are incapable of witnessing ourselves – of experiencing human” being.”

See, this is where you go off the rails. And this is why you might be mocked and laughed at. Your ideas do not ring of a complete and perfect spiritual nature throughout all -- they clank like thin rusty chimes that were cobbled together by a bitter person who wants to justify narrow-minded, self-serving thinking.

This is what the Secular Intolerance thread was about. If one doesn’t sound like Oprah they have no realistic concept of spiritual man and must be cursed out with the greatest possible skill. It is the way of the world.

Wouldn't it be awesome if you were walking down the street and looked into the eyes of a homeless atheist person and you were suddenly filled with complete awareness that you and he are the same, and all is perfect and as it should be?

Wouldn’t it be awesome if you had the experience that on a higher level of reality our species is one but it serves a cosmic purpose that man become fractioned also at a lower level. Wholeness and fractions are both real. A person of understanding consciously knows what is necessary to unify them. But how many even know what it means to “understand”? - to stand under

Can you accept that the Universe is vastly broader than the definitions and models you place onto it?

Of course. I am restricted to a three dimensional concept of the universe. I’ve learned theoretically that I live in a six dimensional universe. I could for example experience man in eternity – the fifth dimension. But I’ll leave that for those with real understanding.

[Lacewing]

Secularism is a psychological result from being closed to the universe for what it is

So you are claiming to know what the Universe is. And you are claiming that secularism is about being closed to "what is". Your arrogance and contorted definitions are astounding.

Secularism is just the result of limiting the mind to affairs of the world

Not true, Nick. People do not have to be theists to think beyond the world. You should know that. I can only guess that you cling to your inaccurate claims with willful ignorance because broader truth threatens your entire platform and identity.

I grew up in the church as many people did. I know about theism as many people do. And, as an adult, I chose a non-theist perspective which is full of natural spirituality...as many people have done. Your categories for people are a bunch of crap. Either you clearly have NO CLUE how much more there is, or you're a very desperate and manipulative person.

I’ve been given a hypothesis - a skeleton of the universe. I am invited to affirm or deny it based on efforts to have the experience of oneself – know thyself. This practice allows me to put meat on the bones of this skeleton so as to see how it works. You have drawn conclusions while I am contemplating and verifying the skeleton.

ALL YOU DO IS DRAW CONCLUSIONS! Who do you think you're kidding?

Do you see how your quest for meaning and purpose drives you to create stories and judge people based on that? Does that sound right?

I didn’t create the hypothesis you call a story.

I'm not talking about some hypothesis. I'm referring to ALL OF YOUR STORIES. Don't try to excuse or validate ALL that you create -- AND WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT. You are responsible.

Would it surprise you to learn that man is a mini universe. It is basic cosmological idea.

To "learn"? In other words, another thing that you think you KNOW for certain. Of course, it's an easy enough GENERAL concept to understand -- but I bet you'll take it too far with your "knowing" imagination...

That is why when a person becomes able to know thyself they also witness a universe in action.

Ah yes, and here you go -- suggesting that "knowing" yourself (a simple, limited, human) shows you the universe. If that were true of you, Nick, in any significant degree, you would say much more enlightened things about yourself AND the universe, rather than being so hung up on simple little human stories.

The problem is that as we are, we are incapable of witnessing ourselves – of experiencing human” being.”

Aren't you suggesting, however, that YOU are capable?

All you have to do is broaden your own vision and you will see many such people! They exist! They are on this planet! Your words suggest that you honestly cannot see beyond what you're claiming. This is why I keep asking you why you focus on some low-level imaginary "reality" that you weave stories about, in which you tell other people how wretched they are and what they cannot do. Set aside all those stories and beliefs, and in complete stillness OBSERVE yourself doing this.

If one doesn’t sound like Oprah they have no realistic concept of spiritual man and must be cursed out with the greatest possible skill.

What are you talking about? You have your own view of spiritual man. You make claims about that. You form conclusions about that. And you tell other people that they are incapable of it. It's really simple: You don't know what's beyond your beloved claims!

A person of understanding consciously knows what is necessary to unify them.

Might it be possible for a conscious person to know that they're already naturally unified?

But how many even know what it means to “understand”?

Do you mean to understand the way YOU DO? Why would your "understanding" be so significant?

Why would it make sense that your view is somehow so conscious and accurate, while most other people's are not? Do you really think the universe is that small and limited? How does that make any sense at all?