|
|
|
Now you know why I became an astrophysicist! It was a desire I'd had since my childhood....... I wanted to know how it worked and why it worked. My first view through a telescope and I was truely hooked.Nothing that has happened since has changed anything in terms of that desire. Not a lick of disappointment do I possess upon learning more and more. The more I know, the more I want to know. Every nugget leads to more nuggets. Unlike what M said about questions leading to more questions being a bad thing....... It's a good thing! The mind, properly disciplined and interested, is a very good thing!
|
|
|
|
Ahh! That's better. Couldn't respond earlier, I was making dinner.
There is one thing I got from my experiences, that I do not regret: not in the slightest. I learned to make very good curries. (Though I say so myself).
I fear it is too late: (not fear I am very happy to announce that I am probably hooked on astronomy and astrophysics for the duration.
Where does astronomy start turning into astrophysics?
Where do I go for a good book; not too technical to start with?
What is fascinating me from my old perspective, is: how much inspiration there is for thought, but more, some of these nebulae look like sights I have seen in inner space.
I am not talking about the simplistic green neon dough nut, sometimes in two halves, floating on its little purple foot cushion, which is what m gave me: but things I have seen, as others here have suggested, both with and without psychedelic assistance, before becoming entangled in maharaj ji's web.
These were all encompassing experiences, all being was involved, outside as well as inside, but concentrating, stilling the mind, allowing the breath to become slow and even and looking inside, without applying physical techniques, but with psychedelics did produce astonishing results, which m's k never even approached. From the beginning I was coached to say the right thing about my experience before my disappointment could set in.
I have a strange hair raising feeling that comes over me with certain pictures of spiral nebulae as if I were looking at something familiar from inside my own head.
One of my very real drives now, which I did not have when I was a child, beyond a love for the subject, is the feeling that it relates very firmly to the truth. Perhaps I should say that it has great power to assuage lies about the universe. That is a purpose I am driven most strongly by.
Thank you again NAR and everyone for your posts which are beyond anything which I could have imagined.
Lp
|
|
|
|
Hi Nar! This is Great Thread! However, We do need to stay on topic here (Lol to myself). Esp. when talking about the Universe... So let's not forget Prem Rawat's words about "It All". This attachment is a small quote from Prem Rawat. It comes from his talk called "The Essence Of Everything" at Dortmund, Germany, on October 1, 1978. Topically Your's... Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 00:02:52
|
|
|
|
It comes from the 'Divine Light Mission' magazine called "The Golden Age" Number 51, February 1979, Page 2. This attachment is from the front cover of this same publication. It's a photo or picture of "Mr. Universe" himself... Prem Rawat! Yikes!
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 00:45:12
|
|
|
|
This is from Chapter 2, Doing Meditation, It's Practice... And to think the only thing I really did wrong here in this attachment was to replace the word meditation and substitute it with the word masterbation. And then repost it for a second time! Now, I'm in real trouble right? I hope you can laugh! I'm serious about this! If it's too much Please delete this post. Hilltop, The X rated, Ex- Premie.
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 03:17:55
|
|
|
|
The pope goes to heaven and meets St Peter who welcomes him and says 'you can have anything you want'.
The pope asks to see the original scriptures.
Peter sends the pope into a lovely room with all the original scriptures and the POpe beings to read and get absorbed.
After 3 days of reverend silence from the room,, Peter suddenly hears a scream from the Pope.
SO Peter runs into the room and says to the Pope , "What is the matter?".
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Pope says in anguish "oooooh it says 'celebrate'"
Modified by Jethro at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 03:33:44
|
|
|
|
I would delete this post and fix some spelling on another post but ofcourse ~ it's too late to make any changes now. Darn... Hilltop
|
|
|
|
Wow, talk about big chair! But actually he's just got a little small chair he's really sitting on in the middle, see it. But even so it is a pretty convincing picture.
Look you can see the stars all shining, and the twirly strings of galaxies, and there's the cushion for the do-nut.
You gotta use a bit of imagination, half close your eyes, listen to the music... help him out here guys, look at the trouble he's gone to with his wardrobe....
You do like the idea of him being the Lord of the Universe, don't you, I mean I thought we'd agreed to agree on this one, we've dealt with this already.
 Kidding!
Modified by LP at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 09:02:16
|
|
|
|
There have been some great comedy skits with adults playing children by dressing them up in kid-looking clothes and placing large furniture, such as this, on the stage. Either that or he was anticipating his waist size after "absorbing all that love" LOL!
|
|
|
|
Maybe it was designed in cms. but built in inches.
Modified by LP at Mon, Jun 26, 2006, 17:31:32
|
|
|
|
Hi Hilltop, Thanks again
How could we not be afraid? How did I go from hearing about someone in the square, one afternoon, to quite soon being owned, like a pet later forgotten). How did the inexplicable wonder of the star gazing child turn into a deal where:-
One young, short, smug boy, comes out of a street in another town, another country, and managed to convince me that he gave me all these, and a virtually infinite no. more, even its essence, whatever that is.
Who would that be to say he can draw forth the essence of the stars as if it were his wine: the stars; his grapes.
So, reading on; he didn't say he gave me the stars, just the essence, I stand corrected, essence of all the galaxies, Shifting up a few gears, essence of the universe, well ... that's what he is saying.. go back and browse some more pictures. He has the essence of that. Oh, I stand corrected: Essence of Himself,... hmmm ...not sure I want that...Oh I see! ... There is an equation here... Essence of universe = essence of guru maharaj ji
therefore: universe = guru maharaji
Are the stars the atoms in his body...? Ahhhh That, those innocents: and insearchoftruth is the beginning of the end for the rational mind, that is the madness he puts into young minds.
This is an alert. This cannot harm the universe, even though it itself has been insulted. but it will hurt our minds. and those, whose minds are to fall in the future if we do not speak.
Oh I see, I stand corrected, Essence of yourself. Me? You gonna give me my ole essence ay? Oh yeah, an 'ow much is that then? What you take me for? Hmm, the whole of the rest of my life, my parents, my family, my hobbies, my love for anyone else but you.... hmmmm ..... lou ke ni lou .... rubs penny in pocket....
And you say this is real essence ay ... of me.... right?
I'll take it.
Lp who knows a good deal
Modified by LP at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 06:22:57
|
|
|
|
What's that? just leaving with my new set of travelling valises, vases, essence of self and all, and I overhears: "The everything deal"
He's got a name for it, wait a minute, I'm getting an uneasy feeling here, (Searches luggage,) So where does that leave me?
"You know"
Wait what are you going to ask next?
"There is nothing more that could be possibly asked."
But...(Frantically searching wallet)
"There is nothing more that .. is ..in fact... left"
But...
"Nothing!"
But why?...
"Because in that knowledge, in that grace, in that beauty, in that perfection, is everything. Because it's perfect ...for me." 
Cool!
Lp
Modified by LP at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 05:49:47
|
|
|
|
When I first logged on this morning I found somewhere a set of pictures which, for example, showed Betelgeuse in relation to our Sun, Jupiter, Earth and so on. In some, the Sun was like a pip-seed in comparison to huge greater works, and the Earth, naturally was beyond zilch. I agree with anyone who finds such comparisons totally awesome - they are. What comes to mind here is our own experiences sometimes as humans on the micro level.
That sometimes, just watching a sunset or maybe walking in a wood or on a mountain, or maybe just in our own garden, we can sometimes have a feeling of transcendence, in which we feel totally joined with everything around us. I don't necessarily find this mystical. I think it very possibly a 'throwback' to earlier stages of consciousness in which we were perhaps more attuned to nature in much more elementary stages, from which we have evolved greatly further into individuality. But the elementary state can maybe emerge sometimes again, in a very pleasing fashion. I wonder whether astrophysicists experience the astro type images just as extraordinarily beautiful but abstract pictures, as something within an art gallery to be admired, or whether they sometimes feel an intrinsic sense of kinship, that they belong somewhere inside it all, as a part of the happening itself.
|
|
|
|
As an astrophysicist, I feel qualified to answer that with a "qualified yes" to either sentiment.You did forget one thing, the "extraordinarily beautiful" images are actually loaded with data! The fact that they are beautiful, too, is icing on the cake. We do, make no mistake, get "awed" by some events that produce unbelievably beautiful results. However, we are also aware of the "local" impact. For most of the objects that interest me, if there were life anywhere in "close" proximity, it would be immediately extinct! Of that, there is no doubt at all! Take a look at images of a very interesting object called V838 Monocerotis (V838 Mon). Read a little about it after you get over the beauty of it. Those "shells" tell us much about exactly what has gone on with that variable star (which is a mass-transfer system consisting of two stars bound together in a very close double). The beauty is a boon, but it's the data that the "beauty" provides that is the most meaningful to us, of course. Still, we know we evolved here and are an intrinsic part of the whole thing. We, as living beings, are just as much a part of the universe as M42....... we are just ALOT smaller.
Modified by NAR at Fri, Jun 23, 2006, 13:16:29
|
|
|
|
Hi, NAR, So do think therefore that there is some universal type of consciousness which joins our sometimes deep feeling of kinship on the smaller level (yes we are sometimes one with everything) to the more cosmic or astronomic level?
|
|
|
|
But I can tell you that there is certainly a possibility exists that such may be the case. The biological sciences have turned their attention toward the origins of consciousness and it appears to clearly indicate a physical origin and explanation. Now, if you were to ask me, do I think that "stars" are self-aware or something like that? I'd answer with a resounding no, because if that were so, it would have to be awareness on an atomic level. In other words, a star is basically a very large ball of hydrogen or helium that is in the process of fusing. That would, by necessity, mean that a bottle of hydrogen here is conscious, too. Possible? Well, yeah....... I guess..... But is it likely? Not by any measure we possess. I can yell epithets at a bottle of hydrogen and it doesn't punch me in the nose or explode or anything. I know.... silly, but I think the point is made. A stellar object is not likely to possess any more awareness than a bottle of the elements that make it up. They are nuclear furnaces, nothing more than that. Scientifically, from what I know now, I would have to say that I possess no reason to think that we are part of a collective or supernatural entity that takes in the whole universe or even a part of it. Does that mean it isn't so, absolutely? No, of course not. But, I would think that if it were so, we would have discovered it by now given the state of our detectors and our ability to correctly interpret what those detectors tell us. There is only so much spectrum in the electromagnetic realm, for example, and we have detectors for each and every part of it. No whispers from "god," yet
|
|
|
|
Hi NARThe biological sciences have turned their attention toward the origins of consciousness and it appears to clearly indicate a physical origin and explanation Well, that is precisely because they are biological sciences, and they think that way, that is their paradigm. As you say, there has been a lot of activity recently in both science and philosophy about consciousness, and everyone has their take on it. I am doing research currently with a private grouping on this issue, and the one thing which is for certain, is that no one knows!! There are very good arguments that consiousness has a physical explanation, there are equally good arguments that consciousness is the fundamental and you must explain the material in terms of that. There are also people going 'sideways' as the current philosophical jargon has it, meaning that both matter and consciousness devolve from something even more fundamental. Another philosphical tack is that the reason there is a 'hard question' of consciousness is because it is the wrong question altogether. This ranges from consciousness is an illusion (meaning it is not what we all think it is, not that it does not exist) to consciousness is merely perception of reality, no more no less. I don't want to spawn one of those long threads on consciousness, where everyone gets heated like it was a religious discussion. I merely wanted to suggest that your comment 'it appears to clearly indicate a physical origin' may well be true, but is also hotly contested - and I am not talking just New-Age mystical philsophy, but hard-nosed and mainstream academic types as well!! -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Fri, Jun 23, 2006, 15:03:49
|
|
|
|
I agree with your take on the entire issue. If there is one place left that is the least understood, it would be "consciousness" or "I-ness" as I would call it. Not only do I exist, but I seem to "know" that I exist as an entity, too! I speak about my "personal take" based upon the science performed so far. I am not saying there is no other answer, just that this is "my take" and the reasons for that take. Mine tend to be based upon hard science, but that would be my natural slant, of course. I "trust" science as a method. It hasn't let me down, yet. My "instincts" and "just knowing" have let me down (as could probably be said by all of us when it comes to rawat, for example). So science is where I lay my head So no, no yelling or gnashing of teeth from me on this particular issue. It certainly is a hotly-contested idea, all around. "Consciousness" may well be the final human frontier! It is certainly the "closest to home"
Modified by NAR at Fri, Jun 23, 2006, 16:04:20
|
|
|
|
You know...... as strange as this may sound coming from me, I do have some observations concerning this topic. In some ways, it does remind me of a problem in quantum physics. Especially when it comes to experiments dealing with consciousness.To be more specific, the principle involved is this: The performance of the experiment, all by itself, may well influence the outcome of the experiment. We know that when we "shutdown" certain areas of the brain, that consciousness appears to cease. The question would be, how do we know? By shutting down the brain, we have shut down the only method we possess to provide feedback. So, if there actually were consciousness remaining after brain shutdown, there would be no way to communicate this little fact since a brain is required to provide that feedback. THIS is the part that bothers me when you start talking about consciousness. You could state that turning off the emotion centers certainly shuts down emotion. Feedback can be provided by the brain so afflicted with the words, "I don't feel anything anymore.... not happy, not sad, not anything." Ok, fair enough, but does that mean consciousness is dependent upon a brain? Not necessarily. What may have just been demonstrated, by that experiment above, is that the innate nature of consciousness doesn't include "feeling." While that might be anathema to some who think "feeling is everything," that doesn't alter the possibility that "I AM" doesn't feel a darned thing! I could go on with other examples, but I think you get my point. How's that for playing "devil's advocate," eh? Does my willingness to entertain the above mean that I "chuck" science? No..... I think it means we have to devise some pretty clever experiments that may, at the present time, be beyond our ability to perform and interpret. I certainly do think that science is the way to go, no matter the path it takes.
Modified by NAR at Fri, Jun 23, 2006, 16:32:13
|
|
|
|
Hi Nar & Mike
I'm firmly convinced from subjective experience that consciousness is a field. What this means I have no idea, but I'm happy to leave further investigation in the hands of science. Religion is fine for the good order of society, but as an explanation doesn't cut the mustard anymore. It's a pity I didn't realise that when I was 20.
Let me know when you've sussed it out.
|
|
|
|
I'm firmly convinced from subjective experience that consciousness is a field. I`m not firmly convinced of anything about consciousness from subjective or objective experience but there is a lovely field outside my garden full of wild flowers.... could that be the same sort of field you are talking about? I'm happy to leave further investigation in the hands of science Science may be as limited as any other language/metaphor based paradigm when it comes to defining it. Let me know when you've sussed it out. We could be waiting a long time.
|
|
|
|
Hi PatD
"I'm firmly convinced from subjective experience that consciousness is a field"
I see nothing to refute in this sentence, gravity is a field, magnetism is a field. Want to check it! Drop something! The way it moves is the direction of force. Iron filings will show the patterns within the field of magnetism.
Life forms, yes including the meadow, are patterns in a field of consciousness, the directions in which they grow reveal the patterns in the directions of the force of life in consciousness.
Lp
Modified by LP at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 06:17:54
|
|
|
|
Yes, an electromagnetic one, into which we are all cerebrally and emotionally plugged. Within the general field, each one of us is a small node, a receptor and expressive point, individually aware, but powered by the general field. The field is awash with the general feedback from the many individuals, storing the collective information into intrinsic memory banks. The general field is akin to a massive internet, in which we sit as behind little VDUs, expressing our own individual and immediate responses, but dipping voluntarily or involuntarily into said field memory banks. Individual computer work station the conscious mind; the internet, the subconscious mind; the electrical circuit powering it all the cosmic energy, whatever it is. OK, someone had to make such a fairly obvious comparison, though whether it has any relevance I don't know. There's an interesting program on UK TV (C4) on Monday, about flashbacks by people who have had heart transplants.
Glimpses of the lives of the donors, their feelings, incidents from their lives.
Fantasy, or reality? The ancients believed that the centre of the personality was the heart, whereas we now consider it to be the brain. Do people with kidney transplants experience anything similar, or is it only heart transplantees.
|
|
|
|
You're way ahead of me here Anthony. The subjective experiences which lead me to think there is such a thing have been few, incomprehensible, & in essence irrelevant to the way I have conducted my life.
There is no objective evidence for anything electromagnetic into which we are all 'plugged', & thinking so is surely just an update on the Science of the Soul idea upon which the Rhadasoami religion of Shri Hans was predicated.
I don't form any philosophy from my 'experiences', & I use that word in its correct meaning, of things which have happened unbidden, in preference to 'perception' which implies a degree of investigation.
Do people with kidney transplants experience anything similar, ..... I hope not, otherwise they're liable to think they're swaying behind a hedge every time they go for a tinkle.........oops, got that back to front, it's the piss artists who need a new kidney, or should it be liver.
Just as well lung transplants aren't feasable, or else some poor sod might end up taking his first deep breath after the operation, & shouting out, 'I'm connected to the Infinite, there's this Holy Name which I recognise from my previous donor, Bhole Shri Satgurudev Maharaj Ki Jai.'
Hic, burp, cha cha cha.
|
|
|
|
I'm one of the "wrong question" sort of people but Mike surely we know one thing: Human consciousness has a physical origin. it may have a non-physical origin and explanation as well but as in all of us it is firmly rooted in our physical selves, wouldn't that be a given?
|
|
|
|
Hi NAR, Ocker, PatIf this thread goes much longer, we should probably move it to the other forum, unless I/we can give is a Maharaji slant. PatD: Religion is fine for the good order of society, but as an explanation doesn't cut the mustard anymore Yes, I agree with you about religion not being an explanation, and I think there are few people on this forum, at least, who would disagree. I personally don't think it is even 'fine for the good order of society' though either, but that is an argument I won't pursue here. Ocker: surely we know one thing: Human consciousness has a physical origin. it may have a non-physical origin and explanation as well but as in all of us it is firmly rooted in our physical selves Yes, as philosophers would say, the brain is necessary for consciousness, but is it sufficient? Meaning we must have a brain to be conscious, but that is not the same thing as saying the brain, or anything physical or material, must be the sole cause of consciousness. NAR: I found your two posts interesting, as being a microcosm of how the wider-ranging scientists are beginning to think. Your first post was a straightforward response from the working scientist that you are, expressing trust in science as a method. It hasn't let me down, yet. Then some 20+ minutes later, after reflection, you start to think about the issue from beyond science, as a philsopher in fact, in your post 'Added Later'. Philosophers have always needed to be up on the latest science and mathematics to be credible. Up until a few years ago, the reverse was not true, scientists were able to ignore philosophy completely as being irrelevant. This is no longer the case. More and more scientists working on the frontier of things are being forced to take an interest in questions that have previously been the philosopher's domain. I am not sure why this is so. Perhaps because physics is moving so far beyond the domain of common-sense. Perhaps because many of the so-called theories are as much philosophy as science - certainly most of the hot topics in physics are, anyway (all unproved and tentative - string theory, dark matter, extended newtonism, the Higg's particle - all are philosophical-ish as much as science). And of course this is certainly true in the case of consciousness studies. There is no a priori reason to suppose matter is any more fundamental than consciousness. It may be so, of course, and someone may yet prove that neuron X is the cause of consciousness, or quantum effect Y in the synapses. But I personally would not bet on it. And even if it were proved, I don't think the 'hard question' would be answered, which to me is much more a question, as you put it, of I-ness than consciousness per se. I can't really think of a Maharaji slant to all this. Thinking rationally, and looking at all the possibilities dispassionately, is so far beyond Rawatism that there is nothing to say. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
'Yes, as philosophers would say, the brain is necessary for consciousness, but is it sufficient? Meaning we must have a brain to be conscious, but that is not the same thing as saying the brain, or anything physical or material, must be the sole cause of consciousness.' Is it possible then that there is another power behind all the other obvious forces of nature? Suppose this were true, this wouldn't be necessarily recordable by our standard instruments. Just an obvious question, and probably unanswerable.
|
|
|
|
Hi AnthonyIs it possible then that there is another power behind all the other obvious forces of nature? I guess so. Suppose this were true, this wouldn't be necessarily recordable by our standard instruments. I guess not. But Ockham's Razor says 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', meaning why assume something when it is not necessary? So the real question is: Why do you feel it is necessary to posit another power 'behind all the other obvious forces of nature'? (If you do, you don't say you do, but from your other posts I think you do). All the wonder and beauty and meaning to life that I can conceive of are in this world and my own being as they are, which means I do not feel the need to posit another power above and beyond the 'obvious' ones. But whether there is, or is not, a higher power is as you say, unanswerable. So let's leave it there! Take care -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Hi, Mike I was just interested in that quotation of yours, and wondered what implications you might see, or which there might be. Yes, let's leave the further speculations. Too many things to do around here, especially when the weather is nice and the country is calling. Bests, Anthony
|
|
|
|
That we have moved on and that our thinking abilities have, apparently, been unharmed by the whole thing. Not to mention, that it is ok to think!Nope, haven't broken into a million pieces..... and my wife likes to snuggle, so I cannot possibly smell of rotting vege's. Wouldn't it be a hoot if M were to actually try to take on a subject as deep as this....... and never use the words "beautiful," "perfect" or "breathe?" LOL! "Scenes we'd love to see"....... M actually using his brain!
|
|
|
|
You say a star is just a big ball of hydrogen, so if it was to have any conciousness, so would a bottle of hydrogen. But a star is huge. There is structure in there - I have seen pictures of sunspots. The consciousness could be associated with the structure. Saying that because a bottle of hydrogen doesn't have consciousness, therefore a star doesn't is like saying because this steak, a bunch of protein and fat and so on doesn't have consciousness neither does this creature.
I don't talk to stars by the way - I just think your logic is not correct here.
|
|
|
|
Do you have any idea what a sunspot is and why it happens? To what specific structures do you refer (namely the ones you think may hold a consciousness)? Do you know anything about the composition of stars and why they fuse elements? Do you know of any structures, other than sunspots, and why they occur?The point being that if you don't understand the structures and what causes them and what they do, specifically, then you cannot make a comparison like you did. We know what protein structures are for and what it takes for that structure to "live." Protein is not, by the way, an element. Hydrogen is, as well as helium. By your logic, we should probably try to hold a conversation with a nuclear reactor (which is, by the way, what a star is). A large nuclear reactor to be sure, but a reactor nonetheless.
Modified by NAR at Fri, Jun 23, 2006, 19:16:51
|
|
|
|
'a star is basically a very large ball of hydrogen
or helium that is in the process of fusing. That would, by necessity,
mean that a bottle of hydrogen here is conscious, too.'
I just think your analogy doesn't work. Comparing a jar of hydrogen to a star is like comparing a cup of tea to an ocean - some similarities, but... It's the analogy I didn't like - don't get me trying to defend the idea we can talk to stars and nuclear reactors!
|
|
|
|
Analogies are tough, but I think you got the meaning of what I was trying to convey and that's all that matters
|
|
|
|
Hi Andrew,
Yes I have that side too, I have only used these images, so far, to strengthen conviction against imposed belief, but what arises of itself within seems valid to me still. Living is one of the things universal material does, and its finest states, like the thinnest gaseous nebular veils are thought, (noble ones especially,) memory, the feelings we have for each other and our race, and human consciousness itself.
No one forced these upon us, we all know what we're talking about. We might dismiss these as physically existing realities. We might equally dismiss them as non existing physically. But they cannot be denied as experiences. And it is only by experience that we verify these other more proven facts. All the facts we have are among the objects upon which that consciousness falls.
I am deciding to reserve judgement on this subject for the moment, but have to admit these things which I ponder upon.
Either way, people are, for me among the great wonders of the universe, not for size or excessive luminosity, but a certain je ne sais quoi.
In an ideal world, there would be plenty of time to go on debating this. In fact a healthy sign on any village green should be groups of people discussing these issues.
What is unhealthy, for our race, is imposition of unilinear trains of thought.
This is what we do, we have ideas, we string words, like beads on a string, we exchange, inspire new thought. Such conversations on these threads could, on this basis, to be signs of returning to normalcy. Ultimately it does not matter what we decide, We could all wear blue hats on one day and red the next and argue for and against the existence of the mind. No problem, so long as it is in peace. We might find out one day or have had fun quessing, and reasoning. It's all inevitable, whatever it is we can't change it: we can't will subtle levels in and out of existence.
Whether I believe in god or not I am beginning to see that it has nothing to do with noble thoughts, or sense of good will toward mankind. In fact I would say when I abandon models of god I feel more heart for humanity; an even greater dedication to our race.
we must, for our own sake, shake off the last vestiges of that hypnotic tendency to let ourselves be told what to think.
Lp
Modified by LP at Fri, Jun 23, 2006, 18:14:36
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry Anthony, I typed the wrong name, must concentrate.
Lp
Modified by LP at Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 20:30:56
|
|
|
|
>I don't necessarily find this mystical. I think it very possibly a 'throwback' to earlier stages of consciousness in which we were perhaps more attuned to nature in much more elementary stages, from which we have evolved greatly further into individuality.< Why should the effect of being filled with 'awe' - whether it be by a sunset, a Bosch painting, the birth of one's first child or (god help us) a Beckham goal - not be 'mystical'. Whether these are 'throwback' experiences, incidental brain chemistry events or some unexplained passages into another dimension, surely from the perspective of the individual the event is as powerful as it is and has such meaning as the individual sees in it. My guess is that in terms of what is going on in the individual is, depending on the indivdual's psychological preparation and cultural experience, much the same thing for a Neolithic farmer watching the mid winter sun set a Stonehenge, or in 2006 an 'Ingerland' fan watching the arc described by a leather bladder as it passes into the top right hand corner of the opposition's goal. I don't believe either the farmer or the football fan will have found god - but they may well have experienced what has been accepted as being 'mystical' by millions of other humans over millenia. N
|
|
|
