Thanks for your input Allan... A few comments: The notion of 'fossilized' when it comes to thought is noted and accepted as occurring...even though if actually analyzed, one might find inconsistencies unintended. Perhaps crystallized would work?
Regardless, when examined closely, all thought is crystallized/ fossilized to some extent or another...period! With this in mind, I accept that it is one innate aspect of being a human being. Perhaps a difference here is that I also accept that people innately have other ways of apprehension other than ideation and in this way, with both relative/subjective/words&concepts as well as absolute/objective/no- words&concepts occurring concurrently/consubstantially, it is merely a fact and a reality of how we are...nothing to worry or be concerned about let alone denigrate. The problem with generalization about church, interpretations, truth etc. is that one all too easily wears blinders to much more and in this way doesn't see reality as it is. One simple examination which in no way is meant to be all inclusive let alone compelling is that institutions such as 'church' by their nature must say that their beliefs are right and others are wrong. It is their nature and any other approach would result in an entirely different reality...one that does not exist. Again, I'm not saying that it is good to crystallize thought; however, what is - is. In this way, I'm not saying it is bad either. More to the specific, IF your opinion of beliefs being evolving is accepted, even that belief (evolution) must be examined and allowed to change...thus some of my offering here. So, in a larger picture, there is truth. And, that truth includes both thoughts/beliefs and a more direct/intuitive method of being...not just one or the other...something I sense we could both agree upon. Continuing, yes, people are looking for that which doesn't change...it has been so 'forever', no? I suspect that if you check, even Gautama said to actually look for that which doesn't change...over 2,500 years ago! Changing topics, I suggest that while the 60s did include a lot of popularized and publicized Transcendentalism, it was but one era in a long series of eras to do so and in that way wasn't very special. Move back a few years to the era of Blavatsky, Theosophy, the Rosicrucians etc. Then a generation or so before that...different groups worked on the transcendental. Continuing back, as we know, one can find Dante, Shakespeare, the Black Sun, Masons, Golden Dawn, Knight's Templar, alchemists, Elysium Fields, their parallel in Egypt, etc. The 60s was but one aspect of a never ending cycle of humans being attracted to the divine. And, rather than simply reject the use of drugs (entheogens) out of hand by suggesting that somehow their use isn't 'valid', I suggest that they have been useful and such is well documented throughout history. Sure they can be abused. Sure anything can. This possibility doesn't make the substance itself 'invalid' in some way does it? (rhetorical question) As to groups of people of similar ilk and/or attractions forming, of course! How could it be otherwise? This is one albeit rather simplified example of attraction to unity. This attraction remains whether one focuses upon beliefs or not by the way... Again, wrong/right just don't enter into such a picture. Things are as they are...no judgments are necessary. The Buddha had his followers...some left...others returned. Christ apparently had his students as did Greek philosophers. The notion of people being attracted to those more enlightened than they are is certainly nothing new. And, yes, there have always been those like Marjoe. To think otherwise is looking at shadows. On Feb 9, 10:55 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay Orn I do understand Rigs corrupt comment, I think fossilized may be a > better word because different beliefs have frozen the meanings of what they > say and their personal church interpretation is the rock solid absolute > truth,, and there is no other truth and that is unchanging. which makes it > corrupt. In my opinion beliefs should be evolving, except people want things > unchanging. > > Transcendentalism has been around for a long time ,, people became aware of > it in the '60's semi drug culture. I think more in a effort to justify > abusing drugs, but that does not make the concept invalid. > > as for joining system I understand why,, it is very difficult to stand > alone in what you believe it is far easier when you have someone else to > agree with you and back up what you day, it does not matter if it is wrong > or right all that matters is you have someone to shift or share the blame > with. > Allan > > 2011/2/9 ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > "Haven't all systems failed in the long run?" - rigs > > No > > > "It seems to me that humans are lost without joining a system that > > bestows an identity they can fashion their life and beliefs around- a > > purpose- yet they all wind up being corrupted whether religion, > > philosophy, politics, economics, etc. I wonder what will happen in the > > USA when Municipal Bonds dive?// " - rigs > > > Is this meant to be irony?...or just an example of one of the systems > > you believe in and find purpose in and are learning is corrupted? > > > "I see transcendentalism as a link to the drug culture of the '60's." > > - rigs > > > Oh, yes, and milk is a gateway drug! ;-) Truth is, many were glad to > > find an easy way to experience something beyond their current > > patterns. Entheogens have been around as long as humans have existed. > > Of course, as has always been the case, one fairly quickly learns the > > temporary nature of drug induced 'wisdom'. > > > "...As for the cave as metaphor, I think it has several interpretations > > beyond blind escape from the world." - rigs > > > No doubt! In fact, I've never heard of that interpretation rigsy. > > > On Feb 9, 4:47 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Haven't all systems failed in the long run? It seems to me that humans > > > are lost without joining a system that bestows an identity they can > > > fashion their life and beliefs around- a purpose- yet they all wind up > > > being corrupted whether religion, philosophy, politics, economics, > > > etc. I wonder what will happen in the USA when Municipal Bonds dive?// > > > I see transcendentalism as a link to the drug culture of the '60's. > > > There's a great cartoon of Emerson as a giant eyeball on a stroll by > > > Christopher Cranch- maybe you can Google it.//As for the cave as > > > metaphor, I think it has several interpretations beyond blind escape > > > from the world. > > > > On Feb 9, 2:08 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No Orn it is not enough that would be a choice to be blind to the > > realities > > > > of life..living in a closed world. now thinking about it it is like a > > lot of > > > > the fossilized religions of today. > > > > Allan > > > > > 2011/2/9 ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > Perhaps if one knows they are in a cave, it is enough? > > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:49 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Of which chosen one we might apply this to the philosophy or the > > woman, > > > > > > but of the ensuing catastrophe it seems certain that most would > > choose > > > > > > to struggle with their relinquished liberation and responsibility > > rather > > > > > > than face the struggle with the self and megalomania. Humility > > might be > > > > > > enough to keep our footing and prevent falling into a self prison > > where > > > > > > we will thrash around with figments and projections of the real. > > Perhaps > > > > > > we are each chosen to step out of the cave, as it seems something > > only > > > > > > one may do for oneself. > > > > > > > Any way simply does not seem 'right' > > > > > > > On 2/8/2011 6:30 AM, ornamentalmind wrote: > > > > > > > > No...actually, for some, attaching to a personal epistemology and > > > > > > > convincing themselves that it is reality works too. > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:07 am, gabbydott<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> Ah! I see the problem! Elevating the personal philosophy to a > > > > > transpersonal > > > > > > >> one, would mean entering the realm of religion, would mean no > > choice > > > > > but > > > > > > >> being the chosen one, which either suits my personal philosophy > > or it > > > > > > >> doesn't. Is that all that keeps us going? > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ash<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> It is astonishing to delve into Daoism again, so elegantly it > > > > > describes my > > > > > > >>> long struggle with identity. How could I forget? The > > fundamental > > > > > precepts of > > > > > > >>> my nature that have stood in stark contrast, this is far too > > > > > convenient and > > > > > > >>> significant.. In my view I see all as nature and the > > transcendent a > > > > > growth > > > > > > >>> or exploration beyond the horizon that today I can only feel > > the pull > > > > > and > > > > > > >>> draw of the innermost. I would certainly enjoy hearing more > > from > > > > > someone who > > > > > > >>> has chosen this path as their personal philosophy! > > > > > > >>> On 2/6/2011 5:51 PM, �zen wrote: > > > > > > >>>> On Jan 31, 4:00 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> Hello and greetings Aezen my replies are mixed in the post > > below. > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/29/2011 10:47 PM, zen wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> This is my first post here, so I thought that this post I > > shared > > > > > in > > > > > > >>>>>> another group would actually be a good introduction here =] > > > > > > >>>>>> *** > > > > > > >>>>>> "There are 2 ways to live your life. One is as though > > nothing is a > > > > > > >>>>>> miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." > > > > > > >>>>>> - Einstein > > > > > > >>>>>> In science, nature - or at least energy - is taken to be > > something > > > > > > >>>>>> inert and void of consciousness. Only from some quirk in the > > > > > evolution > > > > > > >>>>>> of chemistry arising in abiogenises, that engenders > > evolution of > > > > > life > > > > > > >>>>>> is consciousness derived in ever more intricate and > > developed ways > > > > > of > > > > > > >>>>>> expression. > > > > > > >>>>>> However, on the quantum level, it is the interaction of > > basic > > > > > energies > > > > > > >>>>>> that give rise to the fundamental forces - the laws of > > natural > > > > > > >>>>>> behaviour (also referred to as the fundamental > > interactions). > > > > > These > > > > > > >>>>>> most basic interactions of energy give rise to all the > > variety of > > > > > > >>>>>> chemical, biological relationships. That again go on to > > evolve > > > > > ever > > > > > > >>>>>> further, to the point that the interaction of individuals > > gives > > > > > rise > > > > > > >>>>>> to society, and then nations and global poltics and > > economics. Yet > > > > > no > > > > > > >>>>>> matter the level of relationship or interaction we want to > > > > > discuss, > > > > > > >>>>>> all relationships are built out of the same fundamental > > > > > relationships > > > > > > >>>>>> between energies. > > > > > > >>>>>> To suggest that consciousness may exist in energy, yet just > > like a > > > > > bit > > > > > > >>>>>> in a computer, a lone quanta of energy doesn't do very much. > > But > > > > > build > > > > > > >>>>>> up the bits and a computer can do amazing things - but all > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>> same fundamentals of a simple 'On& Off'. Similarly, > > energy > > > > > could > > > > > > >>>>>> simply be consciousness in an undeveloped 'raw' form. > > > > > > >>>>>> "God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the > > animal, > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>>> awakens in man." > > > > > > >>>>>> - Ibn al 'Arabi > > > > > > >>>>>> I am not referring to the God of any scripture. But > > Einsteins > > > > > > >>>>>> 'pantheistic' leniency towards seeing nature as divine. > > > > > > >>>>>> And I agree. I do not believe that a rock is conscious in > > the same > > > > > > >>>>>> sense as we ordinarly define consciousness... but that the > > very > > > > > same > > > > > > >>>>>> interactions that have coellesced in a particular way to > > form a > > > > > rock > > > > > > >>>>>> are the same that have have formed different relationships > > that > > > > > have > > > > > > >>>>>> formed our biology. > > > > > > >>>>>> I'm basically dancing around the point that we are very much > > > > > divine > > > > > > >>>>>> entities, that our lives are spiritual experiences - > > however, that > > > > > > >>>>>> doesn't entail the need for an individual soul. Merely that > > there > > > > > is > > > > > > >>>>>> one eternal universal soul that we are apart of. > > > > > > >>>>>> You can intepret this in a religious context... but I don't > > see > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>> need. If that is as it is, then that is simply it. And as > > much, > > > > > > >>>>>> science is the best tool we have to explore nature. In that > > sense, > > > > > > >>>>>> science, in my opinion, must realise that it IS very much a > > guide > > > > > on > > > > > > >>>>>> morality& ethics, because it explains to us who we are > > and why > > > > > we are > > > > > > >>>>>> as best it can. > > > > > > >>>>>> That rational argument must be the only true way to derive > > our > > > > > ethics > > > > > > >>>>>> because it opens things up to be tested and see if they hold > > true. > > > > > > >>>>>> What consquences do our actions have? And how can we improve > > them, > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>>> improve ourselves? > > > > > > >>>>> Yes, and the philosophy of science at times will call our > > attention > > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>> cultural anthropology or other fields as they merit, all > > within > > > > > science > > > > > > >>>>> IMO. I myself have a very high regard for science as an > > evolving > > > > > > >>>>> paradigm spanning all things, especially the living which > > devise > > > > > tools > > ... > > read more >>
