" ... reason and ‘logic’ alone ... " Bono has been saying this for a while now ... of going beyond this binary model, yes or no, 0 or 1, 0% or 100%, on which we've founded this limiting human order of ours in which GDP, for instance, is supposed to grow, keep growing, and keep ... how far, as in terms of money ? Because, such a growth also makes more money available to the ignorants and pathics, so the law and order becomes a problem, leading to strong government or state with its ills ... misuse and corruption and waste. And, because it results in so many zillion more transactions of money between individuals, businesses, organisations, countries, not all ethical as to be promoting both the individual and public good, each transaction passing strengths and weaknesses among all, redistributing that instrument to power and empower, or weaken and destroy, ... causing this economically stratified society, on local and global scales, in which order the most populous strata at the bottom is also the most necessary to it !
Bono's rhetorical analogy : Why can we not be 80% right ? Or, 60% wrong ? Rather than, say, this ' winners take all ' paradigm that money and the economy is chasing. The paradigm itself is " natural," rooted in our ' might is right ' avatars. Indeed, as I see, we need to recognise the Bhutanese model ... Gross National Happiness. This ability to make or unmake emotions in the lab means little. People will still act driven by their emotions, created or not, unless there is this horrible but logical plan to make zombies of us all, when all will be lost ! The meaningful job would be for us to have high enough emotion quotient, for this capability to choose and prefer ethical directives for oneself. The happiness yardstick may deem that, materially, we all only need to be 55 - 70 % happy, five to twenty per cent more than the mid range, instead of striating between 0 - 100 % as it now does. On Feb 26, 9:31 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Lee, > > I hadn’t forgotten about our conversation here…just got real busy. > I’ll do my best to respond to as many of your points as possible. > > No, I didn’t get the notion of a divine spark in mankind in Sunday > school. I don’t even remember attending even though one summer I did > spend a little time at a church…mostly carving and painting a bible > out of a bar of Ivory soap and learning to repeat a few of the books > of the bible. My guess is that it was a good child care deal for my > mom. Of course, since my parents (and mostly their parents) couldn’t > make up their minds how to indoctrinate me religiously, the default > was no church nor teaching at all. The former small foray into it was > the only one I remember and I must have been all of 3 or 4 years old. > > I’ve shared parts of my spiritual quest here over the years so won’t > bore others with much repeating. In about midlife, I did become > curious, having claimed atheism and agnosticism for quite a while and > so at that point did study a few sources. The notion of the spark I’ve > found back in many ancient writings, Plotinus for one. Even though > Buddhism doesn’t address god in most sects directly, the sense of such > a spark arose while studying and practicing some of it too. The same > during a zhikr…as one reaches fanaa. There are countless other sources > one can run across and I did find quite a few of them. Yet, more to > your point, there were moments in my life (here I’m mostly thinking > about youth…2-16) when I had a sense and direct apprehension of, for > lack of a better term and not having it at the time in my youth, a > divine spark within. So, Lee, for me, I’ve both internally found it > and noted it externally…of course, both are ultimately the same. > > “…It is clear that you belive such a thing, so by what yardstick have > you measured the validity of this idea?...” – Lee > > Lee, as I’ve mentioned often here, even though it may be as simple as > a semantic issue, I don’t use nor accept for myself the use of the > term “belief” when it comes to god or the divine. My best > understanding is that in almost every such case when it *is* used, the > actual meaning is blind belief…something taken on from a book or > ‘teacher’ precisely without the examination nor understanding you are > currently searching for…and then made to be one’s own, even though the > experience itself wasn’t there before. Now I know I can easily be > wrong here so won’t belabor the point more. Please just accept that > the term is problematic for me. Thanks. > > Now to the meat…your term ‘yardstick’. I’ll also point out that you > attached the term ‘idea’ to it as well as ‘validity’. For me, I can’t > say that I have a formulated ‘idea’ when it comes to divine spark…thus > my reticence in using the term ‘belief’ which normally connotates a > concept or idea. And, it is not just a ‘feeling’ either…yet, there is > a knowing. Little more to say here. > > You share your spiritual path and teachers and teachings. I appreciate > this. It is an interesting journey is it not! Yet, please just accept > that I do not personally accept anything I hear nor read by itself as > being in any way a valid yardstick for determining divinity let alone > any associated intention. Again, for now, I will leave this here. > > Your particular yardstick of universality (transcending culture) has > some merit as I see it. However there are many issues associated here. > Thus, my question about hearing words in one’s head…something I > haven’t experienced in this context. You don’t seem to appreciate the > possibility that something ‘crazy’ that one thinks just might be > associated with the divine…did I understand you correctly here? > > Later on, you address something biblical…which does little for me. > However, your words “…I asigned Godly attributes to humanity…” do have > a ring of truth for me. > > However, as much as there may actually be a connection here thus > allowing some attributes we human beings know to be assigned to things > divine too, overall, what all too often is done is some sort of > expectation that any god(s) will be just like us…including all of the > motivations, qualities, emotions, thinking, logics etc. and, at the > same time be *something* “out there”. This to me is absurd. > > Your last commentary implied that maturation includes changing ideas/ > beliefs…for whatever reason(s). In some ways, of course this is the > case. However, I have little confidence that such an either/or > approach, using reason and ‘logic’ alone can produce any lasting let > alone valid and satisfactory answer/solution to such a spiritual > search. > > On Feb 24, 2:05 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hey Om, > > > Yes some fine questions there, I'll do my best to answer them for you. > > > 'Is this a rhetorical question Lee? I do understand that most people > > require such intermediaries and/or representatives and/or ‘revealed’ > > truths…I don’t.' > > > Heh no not at all, it is a serious question. What I mean is how come > > you to this idea of a divine spark in mankind? Did you hear or read > > about it elsewhere, is it 100% purly your own original thought(well > > not original but you get what I mean), did you learn of it perhaps in > > Sunday school? > > > It is clear that you belive such a thing, so by what yardstick have > > you measured the validity of this idea? > > > For myself it is a teaching of my religion, a teaching from Guru > > Granth Sahib, and so reveled truth direct from God. > > > 'The main question that remains as I see it is, just how does one know > > what ‘message’ one is hearing, god’s or > > their own…or even both?!!!' > > > Indeed that is the very question I am asking. > > > 'I haven’t heard words in my head that I would attribute to anything > > supernatural. So, exactly how do you > > approach such things?' > > > Exactly, I see you understand my concern. As I have suggested I use a > > serious of yardsticks to measure teh validyt of any holy scripture. > > The one I'm talking about in this thread is the idea that a truely > > global religion should transcend culture. > > > You mention one of the sticking blocks on this train of thought, > > asigning human atributes to diety. I think though that we can turn to > > the Christian Bible for a way out of that one. > > > What do you suppose is meant by the following: > > > Genesis 1:26 (New International Version) > > > "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and > > let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over > > the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that > > move along the ground." > > > Surly not that we look like God that God's physical form is human not > > when you consider that God is formless. > > I enterpret that to mean our emotions our intelect, our outlook. If > > God is capable of love, as we humans are then that is clearly a human > > attribute. Or perhaps more correctly, I asigned Godly attributes to > > humanity. > > > The other one is hard to counter. Yes of course this all depends on > > my own inturpretaions. There is not a lot I can do about that > > though, I can't ever intrept anything as somebody else. > > I am however honest and grownup enough to rethink entiryly my stance > > if this house of cards does come tummbling down that is how we grow > > and learn is it not? > > > On 24 Feb, 05:56, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “…I guess we can say by message I mean scripture. What is holy > > > scripture if not Gods message to humaity, encompassing teachings, Gods > > > plans, what God requires of us etc...” - Lee > > > > Hey Lee...then this sort of thing is what I don’t embrace. Such > > > anthropomorphism just doesn’t do it for me. It is in this light that I > > > said I don’t embrace revelation…as being told by other people or words > > > in a book…what some deity is supposed to think/want etc. > > > > “…The notion of life including a divine spark is included in this > > > message, or where else would you have the idea from?...” – Lee > > > > Is this a rhetorical question Lee? I do understand that most people > > > require such intermediaries and/or representatives and/or ‘revealed’ > > > truths…I don’t. > > > > “…I guess I am also talking about reveled truth, something that I > > > certianly belive in. How can a theist not belive in such a thing? If > > > the truth of God message is not reveled by God then the assumption is > > > that it is made up by the minds of humans. Anybody could literaly say > > > anything they liked, promote any idea they wanted about God and Gods > > > plan, the ultimate authority on what God wants us to do, must come > > > from God, otherwise, all manor of these 'truths' sping up, which of > > > course makes it hard to choose wich one to belive. In every belife > > > there must be a yardstick by which to measure the validity. Reveald > > > truth is one of the ones that I use to measure religoin…” - Lee > > > > Lee, this is all quite important when it comes to theism. You hit most > > > of the points quite well. The main question that remains as I see it > > > is, just how does one know what ‘message’ one is hearing, god’s or > > > their own…or even both?!!! You use revelation as a standard. This is > > > all well and good; however, exactly how does one know the source of > > > such things for sure? I wouldn’t take it on ‘faith’. I wouldn’t just > > > listen to what other people say. I haven’t heard words in my head that > > > I would attribute to anything supernatural. So, exactly how do you > > > approach such things? > > > > “In Sikhi the very first lines of Guru Granth Sahib are: 'Ikoncar, sat > > > naam' Which translates literaly into '1 God, true name' But we know > > > the problem with literal translations, and so I cpersonaly translate > > > it (wrongly or rightly I know not) as meaning, '1 God, whose name is > > > true/truth' Delving further the idea is thus: '1 God, who is the only > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
