/Steve,/
/Comments below in italics,
Natalia/
Steve Kurtz wrote:
Hello Natalia and Darryl,
I've been backed up, so failed to respond. I did get the original
post. I think we agree on some things and I'll interject my comments
below. (some snipping to cut volume)
If you look up the definitions of spirituality or spiritualism, there
are no mentions of "natural" aspects. Nothing about measurable
energy, nor matter, of course. I do think that /natural /happens to
be the right word, though I'm not sure we share similar p.o.v.'s as
to why. I would argue that we are simply not very good at identifying
that natural energy, and that it is presently too complex and
predominately immeasurable.
*It is unlikely that human perception and cognition can ever
experience more than a tiny % of reality*. *Thus mystery and infinity
(multiverses) will remain such.* It does not matter how "good at
identifying ...natural energy" *we are as we can never have evidence
that we know it all,* even if one believed it possible. Why would one
expect to ever 'get there' given no known boundaries to
space-time-energy-matter-anti-matter...?
/In our common experience of daily priorities and myriad
distractions, it must appear rather pointless to try to fit in a
little mind expansion. And Corporate America thanks you for your
inspirited broadcast. You speak of reality as though you would be
able to recognize it. Reality is perceived or known differently
throughout life's varied forms, especially so for humans by virtue of
the story spun by science that we are genetic freaks of nature
randomly selected to have developed a greater ratio of frontal lobe
to rest of brain (and are consequently destined for the greatest
share of bewilderment). I fail to believe that you personally have
never experienced a quantum leap, as it were, of greater
understanding about reality, just as I doubt you would might consider
meditation, which enables one to connect with universal energy,
pointless, though I don't at all know you. Reality for someone who
practices meditation regularly is generally vastly different than for
those who do not. Experiencing any new kind of energy or good feeling
is amply uplifting, but trying to understand it all, which would
elevate us to the God state, isn't the point (even if it's fun to
try). Pursuit of knowledge outside of the current paradigm of
so-called reality isn't pointless. I agree that we can never have
evidence that we know it all; most knowledge worth knowing is best
experienced rather than merely intellectualized, hard copied or
mathemetized. Yet, moment by researched moment, the universe is being
mapped and explained, time/space is feeling rather less rigid than
before, and understanding of what more mind can do is being both
remembered and revealed./
/When one listens to a brilliant composition, do they stop to exclaim,
"Hey, I can't mathematize this within any acceptable, recognized,
measurable formula for enjoyment, so it must negate reality,have no
impact or value"? Please explain, giving me two pertinent pieces of
evidence, that we cannot possibly enjoy music and know it as a genuine
experience./
the quantum world can appear to the very physicists who explore it, a
world of fantasy.
Agree
/You only agree out of a compulsion to be sarcastic, not because you
understand why it's said. It is said because all of the physicists who
are currently researching this field first trained as classical
scientists, and now they are dealing with abstraction./
Classical science is really a relatively recent way of trying to
explain what takes place in the universe. But centuries ago, we
depended on the church to tell us the facts.
The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, various aboriginals, Chinese, Nordic
folks, etc...had no churches. They had myths they created to explain
things beyond easy common sense.
explores an organismic universe that extends through time/space. It
is, in large part, the new paradigm for current fields of play for
top minds.
Definition of "organismic" is important. Systemic I can grasp, but
organism implies life form to me.
/Yes, indeed. Interconnected life on a humungous scale. Where matter
takes shape once waves of thought collapse at a particular point of
space/time. Picture a holograph, in which infinite wave possibilities
exist simultaneously till one possibility is decided upon. All that
is real, seen and unseen, has life. Perhaps a book that you might
enjoy would be by the theoretical physicist Dr. Fred Alan Wolf called
"_Taking A Quantum Leap_"--a National Book Award winner. (You can
consider this example no. 1 of peer reviewed theoretical physicists
who support these findings)/
At CERN, who allegedly employs almost half of the world's particle
physicists, researchers are exploring the subatomic universe attempting
to explain our origins, and if really lucky the question of why we're here.
wishful thinking??
/Wishful because it's CERN or because you consider it impossible, given
your conditioned criteria for evidence to establish reality or truth? I
suspect that I have greater faith in science (though not necessarily in
CERN) to arrive at an explanation for that pressing question. However, I
could offer you an immediate possible explanation. I believe we are here
to learn how not to become God, and to learn how to reflect God's
thoughts so perfectly that we become like God, and that we must
experience this to know it. Well, really, what else is there to aspire
to here, even if you don't believe in a supreme being? /
The GUT theories (General Unified Theories) are explored at CERN.
Yes. A Theory of Everything has been a 'holy grail' for decades.
Quantum physics explores *possibilities* within the theory of an
entangled universe in which we are all connected. Space is merely the
construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects.
yes: "possibilities" But *a meteorite hitting Earth IS a separate
object and it has measurable impacts. That is NOT an illusion.*
/Measurable within the current classical paradigm, however reality is
subjective. Illusion can and does appear to be and feel very real.
Another way to look at this example could be that we have collectively
manifested the illusion of a crashing meteorite into our field of
awareness in order to, say, punish ourselves, swiftly and brutally, to
alleviate the enormous guilt we harbour for being such monumental jerks
most of the time. Everything we see may be a form of vengeance in order
to justify attack. Now that's either fantasy, or the metaphysical
perspective, yet we very much live out our lives as if defensiveness
must be our unconditional reality. Then again, maybe the meteorite is a
thinking universe's way of coping with an already over-populated world,
and survival of the fittest and luckiest score and get the spoils. We
don't really know what anything is for just because we can define it.
We have assigned meaning to everything we see because of our past. We
are usually looking at a meaningless world, but it is one which we
perceive because of meaningless, upsetting thoughts or images we have
made. We have no neutral thoughts and therefore see no neutral things,
despite temptation to believe it to be the other way around. This is not
the way the world or universe thinks, but it is the way most think. If
it were not so, perception would have no cause, and would itself be the
cause of reality. Because of its highly variable nature, this is highly
unlikely.
/
Quantum physics is popularly known for research around observer
affects on the outcome of experiments, but a more generous overview
would be that researchers are exploring the mind of nature itself, a
world of pure potentiality, of probability waves, pure abstract
self-aware consciousness. *I detect poetry at work.* ;-) Anthropogenic
evaluation of mystery...(mind) Waves, yes. "probability waves??
*disembodied self-awareness?? *Please find 2 examples of theoretical
physicists writings in peer reviewed journals of this. Bob Park, past
pres of The Amer Physical Society would be most interested!
/That p//oetry comes directly from the words of Dr. John Hagelin, winner
of the Kilby award which recognizes scientists who have made major
contributions to society. He has over 250 papers out there, and that
quote was from an older piece he wrote,, a book called "_Manual for a
Perfect Government_"-- which is mostly brilliant. To me, it would appear
that you are far more interested in these examples than Bob Park would
ever be. /
They speak of waves rather than particles;
Waves are energy. Energy IS material.
/From the perspective of classical science. Yet, even classical
scientists have known for years that there exists currently immeasurable
energy in space. Again, our past has taught us to believe that energy is
material is reality. But thoughts are not material, and they have
energy. They are abstract, and yet today are measurable to some extent. /
non-material vectors in a complex, infinite dimensional space. (A
material particle cannot exist in multiple locations simultaneously,
nor does it diffract nor interfere with itself like a wave.) It is a
non-material inner mind behind outer matter, the very stuff that
thoughts are made of. This abstract, non-material quantum world
underlies and governs the outer material universe, according to John
Hagelin, one of quantum physics' more well-known authorities in the
area of unified quantum field theories. He has conducted pioneering
research at CERN, SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) and
developed a successful grand unified field theory based on Superstring.
I'm roughly familiar with String & Superstring. *It is pure conjecture
at this point.* Even if true it says zero about consciousness nor
mind. It would be a descriptive behavior theory.
/GUT include Superstring, so if merely conjecture, please let CERN know
so they don't blow their budget for a fantasy. And tell them to stop
sporting those annoying NO GUT, NO GLORY T-shirts. Er, and yes,
consciousness and mind are integral to quantum research. If you are
searching for answers about consciousness and mind, and find after
actually reading up on quantum physics that it is incapable of
satisfying your queries, perhaps metaphysics would serve you best at
this point in time. I do not say this facetiously, and stress that
belief in God is unnecessary to understand it..
/
Mind, in the animal brain, has still not been located. Neurological
science cannot find it, though the human brain has been thoroughly
mapped. Areas of its processing are apparent, yet the brain can only
reflect consciousness. It does not create it.
Oh really? Damage a part of the brain & get repeatable evidence of
loss of mental abilities = evidence of dependence.
/All that is evidential is that the vessel (or palette) for mind's
expression or processing has been damaged. /
The actual source is still at large and unknown. Brain is
instrumental to facilitate consciousness to develop mind which learns
and evolves. Brain is like the palette on which mind creates.
James Randi Foundation ha $US 1 million if evidence of your claim of
dis-embodied mind can be shown.
(snipped alot as all speculative)
In response to Mike's reply about human hardwiring,...(big snip) The
body's cells are enlivened by opportunity to emerge with new
understanding or experience.
The person may be 'enlivened'; but "the cells"?? Maybe, but evidence?
/Have you heard of goosebumps??? Yes, the cell's receptor sites for the
thousand(s) of addictions we have get aroused with anticipation of
fulfillment./
/I already recommended a book to read on this. By another Kilby award
winner, Candace Pert, who discovered the opiate receptor, the cellular
binding site for endorphins in the brain. The patents on peptides
followed. Do you expect others to do all the donkey work for you, much
like the Randi Foundation does? /
"Molecules of Emotion", actually holds patents for modified peptides
in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, stroke and head trauma. She
has extensively observed addiction at the cellular level, and
contends that emotions are actual molecules. Each cell has a
consciousness, each one needs a fix of something.
Treating disorders successfully doesn't equal *ontological knowledge
of molecules or cells *being emotions. Emotions are experiences of a
subject. They are affected by chemistry as we've known for decades.
/You've brought up an interesting oxymoron, since corporeality has
nothing to do with ontology--the branch of metaphysics dealing with the
nature of being. Perhaps you meant ontogenetic. The book title may
simply be misleading, though I suspect it reflects her findings to a
large degree. I personally believe it is the mind which dictates to the
brain and body, not the other way around. Candace Pert has never
suggested otherwise, to my knowledge, though she does say that cells
communicate with the brain./
I would dispute the over-all claim by David Villano posted from the
Alternet. We have only to look to the dysfunctional Soviet Union or
The People's Republic of China to tear apart this notion of well
being amongst the so-called irreligious.
Many Chinese are Taoist and some are Christian & other religions; and
many Russians are Russian Orthodox, with some Muslim. You are equating
govt philosophy with avg persons beliefs. Not equivalent.
/I didn't say they were equivalent./
The Scandinavian success stories also come with a healthy portion of
reports stating that spirituality is very high there, though
traditional religion may be scarce. Prosperity today implies the
requirement of ever-increasing profit, whereas its past meaning had
more to do with success and a flourishing life. First Nations people
once had healthy lives, environments and micro economies, and also
had deep religious and spiritual beliefs. Many of these were posted
here before. The author is picking facts to suit. America may be
religious, yet a strong sense of caring, empathy, community and
respect for their "God's" natural creations are lost in the roar of
dogmatic cries from those who create God in their own selfish,
vengeful, non-insightful image.
However, if I could get this on track within the guidelines of
Futurework, and all things related...
Where it comes to the socio-economic well-being of any country, its
economy is a /direct reflection of its spirituality./ As are its
politics, religions, its educational systems, its social safety net,
its artistic and cultural development, its health care, or its
environmental policies and vitality.
*Values are subjective once beyond adaptive fitness.* *You love
certain aspects of spirituality as do I. *Unfortunately it is hard to
divide that aspect of human thinking/feeling. The Inquisitions &
Crusades & burning of witches & stonings..are part of the whole ball
of wax. And it ain't dis-embodied!
/As if from an engineering manual on architectural design, and totally
subjective. I can only guess at what adaptive fitness means to you. Of
course it's difficult to divide human thought and feelings. Our thoughts
are controlled by feelings, yet you state above that chemistry has been
known to affect emotion for decades. Well, which position are you
maintaining? Fear based emotions are only perceived as real because of
physicality itself,* *if there is, as metaphysics presents
unequivocally, only one real emotion--love. Fear of an asteroid hitting
you would not be considered real in the metaphysical universe. I'm not
sure where you're going with the Inquisition, etc., but to illustrate
perhaps other examples of realistic fears.
I'm not convinced by much of the above that we both love certain aspects
of spirituality. Your definition seems to lean heavily on a subjective
framework. Perhaps you could define what it is you mean by spirituality.
If we continue this discussion along lines of metaphysical thought, we'd
best do it off-list. Futurework has its restrictions and mandate to respect.
This was riveting; feel free to reply.
/
All Best,
Natalia Kuzmyn
*Cheers on the downslope of overshoot,*
*/Actually, Steve, at least I presented some ideas for people to ponder,
not as facts, but as possibilities. Some specifically relating to and
even sort of supporting your posting:
/*
I disagree with the statement that this might mean we're not 'wired' for
religion. The expression of that wiring can vary with cultural and
environmental circumstances.
*/Your posting offered no reasons whatsoever for your position. So, in
future, if you're going to post such statements, be prepared to explain,
at the very least, your own reasons for your position.. Be brave and
show some GUTS.
Natalia Kuzmyn
/*
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
