On 11 Feb, 18:46, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “Some have opinions out understanding. Others out of confusion. Are > they equal ?...” – Vam > > The people with them are equal. The opinions are equal in the sense > that everyone has an opinion about opinions too! >
Only clones are equal. And even they are different from one anothe in aspatio-temporal way discounting the fact that they may be nurtured differently. People are not equal. Rather, they are 'equally indivdual' and that's a BIG difference. ;-) > On Feb 11, 8:39 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Some have opinions out understanding. Others out of confusion. Are > > they equal ? > > > We could start with another one : self actualising opinions arising > > from ethical ground, from innocence, ... vis a vis ... opinions > > formed of mortal fear or morbidity. > > > On Feb 11, 8:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Religion addresses the human questions about life/death (and, by > > > extension, morality). The physical aspect is fairly obvious, although > > > perhaps not to the ancient Egyptians and countless other cultures, > > > including the current western tendency to embalm and use caskets and > > > dress the dead. > > > > And when it comes to ‘equality’, it is obvious that we are all equal > > > when it comes to having opinions. > > > > On Feb 11, 2:16 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm not looking for religion, but radical, practical changes in > > > > society, the way we live and could live - this, of course, sounds > > > > rather religious! <Arc > > > > > Religious sounding only with loose usage of the word. In that way to > > > > say one followed his new dietary regimen religiously nearly implies a > > > > prayer session with each dose of vitamins when actually all that is > > > > transpiring is healing the ills of the body. > > > > All being analogous to the ills of society, the radical, practical > > > > changes need not be dependent on tenets. We seem to have this dogging > > > > notion that all things must have a consensus drafted by a board of > > > > directors follow by decree and policing. We've lost the ability to > > > > condense it down to "Let's all have a nice day at the park" without > > > > drafting volumes of annotated texts defining the individual elements > > > > eg; what is let's, who is all, what is nice, what time does day end > > > > and are we stepping on the rights of those who do not want to have a > > > > nice day. > > > > This for me weakens the idea that religion is linked to pre-existing > > > > cognitive functions and more so leans towards the idea that it > > > > originated out of the need to adapt in order to reduce or prevent > > > > those who deviate from base level moralistic judgement. Simple social > > > > meliorism can be independent of moralistic decrees and dictates by > > > > governing bodies, it is a simple concept of getting along, working > > > > together without all the complexities that cause stagnation and > > > > quagmire. In principle it sounds easy but in the practical sense it > > > > tends to be utopian because people are not equal beyond their physical > > > > sense in any terms. Out of all that comes religion and government > > > > which can be a religion of itself when gilded with patriotic ideals > > > > and themes, for some government is a god. > > > > > On Feb 9, 10:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This is an extract from a recent article. > > > > > The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have > > > > > not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among > > > > > scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal > > > > > Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new understanding > > > > > to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link > > > > > between morality and religion. > > > > > > There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are > > > > > ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with > > > > > humans, [actually something similar seems to have been observed in > > > > > chimps] are ultimately based in the brain. However, there are many > > > > > unanswered questions about how and why these behaviors originated and > > > > > how they may have been shaped during evolution. > > > > > > "Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve > > > > > the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, > > > > > while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre- > > > > > existing cognitive capacities," explains study co-author Dr. Ilkka > > > > > Pyysiainen from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Although > > > > > there is some support for both, these alternative proposals have been > > > > > difficult to investigate. > > > > > > Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of > > > > > Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, used > > > > > a fresh perspective based in experimental moral psychology to review > > > > > these two competing theories. "We were interested in making use of > > > > > this perspective because religion is linked to morality in different > > > > > ways," says Dr. Hauser. "For some, there is no morality without > > > > > religion, while others see religion as merely one way of expressing > > > > > one's moral intuitions." > > > > > > Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the > > > > > finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious > > > > > backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for > > > > > unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive > > > > > judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit > > > > > religious commitments. > > > > > > "This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a > > > > > biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by- > > > > > product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non- > > > > > religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen. "However, although it > > > > > appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that > > > > > are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating > > > > > and stabilizing cooperation between groups." > > > > > > Perhaps this may help to explain the complex association between > > > > > morality and religion. "It seems that in many cultures religious > > > > > concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing > > > > > moral intuitions. Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is > > > > > not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using > > > > > it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a > > > > > fundamental threat to our moral existence," concludes Dr. Hauser. > > > > > > I tend to see religion much as I would view political correctness - > > > > > that is, peevish, hostile, posturing pretense to be on the moral high > > > > > ground. Even Orn, who is a splendid example of the opposite most of > > > > > the time, lapses to this and so do I. I'm sure he won't take offence > > > > > and think I'm merely pointing to difficulties, not accusing him. Any > > > > > quest for origin is fraught with self-deception and the struggle to > > > > > sort wheat from chaff. > > > > > > I'm not looking for religion, but radical, practical changes in > > > > > society, the way we live and could live - this, of course, sounds > > > > > rather religious!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
