Nice images Marek. Which kind of takes us back to a sort of primitive or proto-religion (which has no negative or dismissive connotations attached to such in my use of those terms).
Early humankind, devoid of the "shoulders of giants" (Newton's great phrase) to stand on and peer out, nor the tools of science and exploration, posed reasonable, in their context, explanations for things around them, and/or created a perspective and even rituals to express appreciation, respect and the recognition of awesomeness of nature around them. Thus perhaps an ocean god or angel to explain waves and the enormity of the ocean and its processes. Or simply appreciation rituals and an inner bowing down to this immense force of nature. And their narratives about the ocean explained things that they observed, and may have even lead to repeatedly correct predictions about the ocean (or mountain, river, wind, fire, earth, harvests, etc) as valid and useful in their context and lives as say the narrative of string theory -- which I understand is not a testable hypothesize -- but rat her an elegant story (aka myth) to explain observed phenomenon -- "pretty well" but not completely. Or Newtonian mechanics whic hwork good in our "region" but fail miserably and would be laughed out of the room by quarks and bosons.That is Newtos laws are far from universal truths -- but work well in defined areas. An local ocean god "theory" might also have worked well in local ancient environs. So in a sense you appear to be reconnecting to those proto-religions. And for all I know (which is infintesimally small) the proto-religionists actual saw a true reality -- perhaps developed from deep appreciation and/or local herbs that enhanced neuro-transmittors such that it broke open unused sensory and empathetic pathways -- enabling t hem to see the ocean spirit. And such gods are local -- there may be an ocean god for stretches of California beaches, replaced by another one some miles down the coast. And presumably different ocean / beach / shore gods in Hawaii, India and Antartica. or even if ther is one global ocean god, there are many others for other forces of nature. Agian, probably geographically bound. Probably not the same ocean or wind gods (if such entities that ancients "saw" actually exist -- which is a huge stretch -- but conceivable) as those on other life nuturing planets or "invisible" planes. The point I am heading for is that a northern califonia beach god is hardly a universal entire cosmos god. Though I can see how cultures might try to out dick themselves by proclaiming how great their god and gods were relative to neighbors. And that as societies merged (invasion, migration, etc) the concept of the local gods merged into increasingly larger gods. But hardly a universal cosmic god -- I would guess. My gut feeling (which has little to do with epistimological truth -- but makes more sense than other things to me) is that even the initial monotheist gods of the desert religions of the past several thousands of years were simply promoted local gods -- perhaps simply desert gods -- having little to do with mountains and oceans - and their cultures. And is a local god more valuable to us than a God of the entire Cosmos? That is, as as simile, Newtonian mechanics are far more useful to us in our space, than say a grand general unification theory that works for everything (but can't specifically predict how fast the ball will drop) Thus, Marek, you may be on to something. Being in and exercising hard in nature yesterday, gave me a clear sense of unity of the gestalt of the vast nature surrounding me -- which I could poetically describe as divine. And appreciating that local "god" may have much more local value for local lives than the grand unified field theory type of god. Though I also don't need to add the "god" part in that that term has so much baggage. Just appreciation of the vast and intense beauty of nature and the complexity and depth of its processes and structures is sufficient to blow me away. --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <reavisma...@...> wrote: > > Excellent post, great thread. > > Wasn't until I started to surf that I got an understanding of what a > god might be. Being in the ocean (as often as I can manage), whose > movement and totality operates on a scale far beyond mine, has > transformed it (in my own head) from an impersonal "thing", into a > real, active Being that I can relate to. > > Not that the sea gets involved with me, but rather, that while in the > surf, I am aligning myself with It. And when I get that right there's > an extraordinary feedback/payback from the big fella him/herself, > inside me. > > Now, when I see the ocean, or even pictures and movies of it, I get > excited and want to be back in the water, to be with the god. > > ** > > --- In [email protected], grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Nice post. (did you mean jains not farsi with the inhaling of bugs > > thing? God if farsi would be chagrined you did not lay your dead > > relatives in an open air sacred space an let crows devour the > remains. > > (not a bad strategy ecologically). > > > > However, you and Billie seem focussed on a anthropomorphic god made > > "in the image of man". What if God, if there is one, is an > > experimental biologist/chemist/physisict of sorts, and cranks out a > > lot of experiments, our big bang an subsequent progression and > > evolution just being somewhat random outcomes of the initial mixing > of > > the brew. And he/she/it has no interest directing the flow. Just > keen > > on watching. Or maybe not even that. Perhaps he has totally retired > > from any interest here. > > > > In other words, a God without conscious intent for a particular > > outcome, and no interest in any active participation in the the > > experiment. Or even the results of the experiment. > > > > Which may lead some to say, well then why postulate a God. Why not > its > > just Nature experimenting with no intent, design, goal or direct > > intervention. Or its all just nature. its just what is. > > > > Which actually is far more magnificent, complex, beautiful and > > breathtaking than any religions conception of God. I mean damn, > > evolution, what a magnificent heuristic. Or the extent of the > Cosmos. > > And the scale factor and mechanics down at the most basic level > > (which keeps evolving, or our understanding of it). And Relativity - > - > > what a mind blower. Better than any myth the Gospels tell (or made > up). > > > > I get more inspired and blown away by listening to a good physicist > or > > biologist who can convey, accurately, his understandings in plainer > > english than used with his peers, than by listening to any scripture > > or God-man -- as they say in the indian tabloids. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], grate.swan <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Billie, what if God doesn't exist? Or Go exists and God is found > to be > > > > way different than you conceptualize God? > > > > > > > > I imagine your reaction would be one of devastation -- but that > is > > > > only speculation. > > > > > > > > I imagine if God exists and Curtis met God, he would say "cool" > -- > > > so> to speak, > > > > > > God and I are not cool. > > > > > > Actually I would be all up in his infinite grill about animals > eating > > > each other alive. He made some with a merciful kill bite and > others > > > with a strategy of eating their prey alive. This is uncool and > there > > > is no excuse for it. > > > > > > Then we can discuss the Guinea worm in drinking water. What a > total > > > putz for inventing that! http://tinyurl.com/da9a4m There is no > excuse > > > for this suffering in the world. (I know some of this material is > a > > > repeat but I am not over Guinea worms yet so please bear with me, > I'm > > > still warming up.) > > > > > > If he wasn't a myth I would be totally pissed about his lack of > > > concern for the suffering of living creatures. (the Karma copout > only > > > applies to humans, and not very well IMO) > > > > > > And he would also have to answer for his crappy communication > skills. > > > Everybody else has a Website or a cable TV channel and the lord > of > > > the universe can't shell out a few bucks so humans have a chance > to > > > understand what he wants? Hellooooooo Mr. Omniscient, ever heard > of > > > Myspace or texting? You lack the communication skills of 13 year > old > > > girls and you expect use to obey your words from old books that > also > > > support slavery? Even Doug Henning had TV specials, how hard is > that? > > > > > > <-- I am sure he would have more eloquent words.> > > > > > > You are too kind, I would be a raging idiot. The meeting would > not go > > > well. > > > > > > < His life> would be similar to how it is now. > > > > > > > Well, if he turns out to be Hindu there is that beef thing... > > > > > > Or Muslim there is that pork thing... > > > > > > And if he is really Amish we are all screwed just for using this > > > electronic forum! > > > > > > And if he is a Parsi, can you imagine how damned we are for just > the > > > bugs we have inhaled? (I won't tell him about your roach motels if > you > > > don't tell him that my freezer is full of prime cuts of Bambi's > mom. > > > (And I would have wasted a life NOT putting "Zoroastrianism" on > all > > > invasively personal forms, just to see the bureaucrat's face!) > > > > > > And if he is Jewish and we don't have those curly sideburns and > the > > > years dipping lobster in melted butter and mornings with bacon, > (both > > > Canadian and the good kind) we are eternal toast. > > > > > > Of it turns out to be Kali and Pol Pot and Mao are sitting in > heaven > > > with big grins at the banquet table and people like me who only > > > inhaled bugs and ate meat, but never took a human life, don't get > in. > > > And if she is Kali AND a feminist who knows what is in my JPG > packed > > > file in the folder named: "boring business stuff that would be > > > uninteresting to any girlfriend reading this." > > > > > > So Pascal's Wager (you might as well believe because it is not too > > > much of a pain in the ass and the upside might be huge) is bogus. > > > None of us are any better prepared for the WYMS thug at the pearly > > > gates announcing in his obnoxious German accent: > > > > > > Too bad, the answer is Poseidon. Everybody who has been making the > > > appropriate offerings to the Lord Poseidon of conch shells each > full > > > moon can come into heaven for our eternal seafood brunch, and the > rest > > > of you will report below for an eternity of service to Dick > Cheney. > > > Don't bother packing any sweaters, swimwear optional. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nice try at a dodge Billy. That spiritual psycho-babble > doesn't > > > work > > > > > > on me. Claiming to know and act according to God's will > still has > > > > > > nothing to do with "humility", and your claim of it had > nothing > > > to do > > > > > > with what is inside me. > > > > > > > > > > You may already be acting according to God's will and don't > know it, > > > > > didn't meant to imply you weren't. Conscience and intuition > are the > > > > > products of our pilgrimage through the rounds of > reincarnation. When > > > > > you spontaneously act rightly it's because you have learned > your > > > > > lessons and intuitively know right action from the results of > your > > > > > past behavior. > > > > > > > > > > Scripture, Conscience and Intuition are the means of knowing > the > > will > > > > > of God, however until one is in complete accord with God will > ones > > > > > behavior be in complete harmony with the laws of nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
