Very insightful, Ash. I think that imagination, especially collective imagination, is key. The rest, historical expression which, while interesting, doesn't take the place of. I see the bible as probably the best historical expression I've read, as diagrams of the imagination. But that is reading with an uncommon view.
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:23:18 PM UTC-5, Ash wrote: > > Regardless of view, what I think we are talking about is what tools best > fit the job, and if we are talking about progress I'd err on the side of > a healthy imaginative vein running through humanity and less mired in > myths and superstition. It is my hope that somewhere embedded in > folksonomy (wrong word probably) are clues to translate the talents of > creative psychic bursts and the low bass beats and tones that hold sway > of so many. > > On 12/11/2012 8:24 PM, James wrote: > > That is where I have difficulty with 'right reason', and I do know where > > you guys are coming from, everyone seems to have a view on it, most > > people know it when they see it I think. It's a conscience for what is > > true like it or not, but it gets colored in agenda and motives that > > determines the depth and scope, what narrative representation someone > > can present. I think we are rife with personality cults, but that may be > > a peculiar oddity of my own view, everything depends on the person. In > > the wrong hands you get megalomaniacs in power, in the right hands you > > get timeless vanguards of noble and hopeless causes. > > > > On 12/10/2012 8:25 AM, archytas wrote: > >> I'm more materialist than RP in that I see religion as more to do with > >> what we do with and for each other - this said I prefer private prayer > >> to collective knee-bending. How does tolerance fare once religionists > >> become 'so pure' they can treat anyone else as infidel? > >> > >> On Dec 10, 1:33 am, James<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> The original post, that is, hmm sorry. :) > >>> > >>> On 12/9/2012 5:40 PM, James wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> RP, I have been considering your post and have taken it in the view > >>>> of a > >>>> biological perspective. It is one that I do think important but I am > >>>> still left wondering why to attach such significance in an exclusive > >>>> sense. It may be that I am overthinking the concept, it is one that I > >>>> hold respect for but not to a degree of conclusiveness. Is there more > I > >>>> should examine? > >>> > >>>> Browsing the TimesOfIndia recently I found talk about the common > views > >>>> on China and worry over world dominance. I imagine there are vicious > >>>> clashes between them and the Arab speaking regions, it seems > >>>> unfortunate > >>>> perhaps like being surrounded by strong interests on each side. I > >>>> obviously have little political world knowledge. :) > >>> > >>>> On 12/9/2012 1:15 PM, RP Singh wrote: > >>>>> Religion is first and foremost about prayer and worship. There is no > >>>>> need for that but we must accept a morality code and adhere by it , > >>>>> there should be a feeling of love for one's fellow creatures and > >>>>> tolerance towards them. > >>> > >>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Given what they have done with some decent spiritual messages > >>>>>> Allan, I > >>>>>> sometimes think of 'them' as Xstains. I was born into the > tradition, > >>>>>> but thought it was twaddle by the time Sunday school was > interfering > >>>>>> with soccer and cricket. I have no doubt we should focus more on > >>>>>> spirituality, fellowship, hospitality, goodwill and sensitivity to > >>>>>> others. I just don't want to base this on a pack of lies, banning > >>>>>> women from hierarchies, prejudicing gays and xenophobic stuff about > >>>>>> outsiders and being part of god's chosen. It's hard to think like > >>>>>> this without being prejudiced against the 'worshipers of the blue > and > >>>>>> white striped rabbit' and purveyors of godswank. The inner danger > is > >>>>>> becoming religiously anti-religious. I'm actually rather touched by > >>>>>> good aspects of some of the stuff. > >>>>>> I have no idea why we are clinging to this rock - but I don't want > it > >>>>>> to be about being amused by Aussie pranksters making hoax calls or > >>>>>> murals celebrating vile killing such as one finds in the Vatican. > >>>>>> Science clearly provides us no answers to our spiritual plight and > >>>>>> religion as I witness it internally is largely about future memory > >>>>>> with less myth in it and less reason to take religion as we might > >>>>>> otherwise take opiates. > >>>>>> A colleague working in India is saying his students are reading > Mein > >>>>>> Kampf - more or less replacing the word Jew with Muslim and > agreeing > >>>>>> the plot entirely. We could do with some sensible religion and > >>>>>> economics to fill the void that leaves people this vulnerable. > >>>>>> Knowledge of thermodynamics or the biochemistry of life isn't > >>>>>> going to > >>>>>> do that for us. > >>> > >>>>>> On Dec 8, 10:01 am, Allan H<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> xtian aka christianity > >>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, rigs<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line > >>>>>>>> about Pilate! :-) > >>> > >>>>>>>> On Dec 6, 4:09 am, archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get > >>>>>>>>> back to > >>>>>>>>> reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from > >>>>>>>>> 'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of > >>>>>>>>> re-evaluating > >>>>>>>>> against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god. > >>>>>>>>> Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious > science > >>>>>>>>> misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know > >>>>>>>>> more. The > >>>>>>>>> spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its > >>>>>>>>> history > >>>>>>>>> of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to > >>>>>>>>> learn > >>>>>>>>> in terms of grace and fellowship. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that > >>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>> can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash > >>>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>>> youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone. > >>>>>>>>>> Allan > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott<[email protected]> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for > cleaning > >>>>>>>>>>> my hands. I > >>>>>>>>>>> use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more > >>>>>>>>>>> difficult dirt on > >>>>>>>>>>> my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more > often > >>>>>>>>>>> I wear > >>>>>>>>>>> gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks > for > >>>>>>>>>>> the tip. > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel > instead > >>>>>>>>>>> of stone, > >>>>>>>>>>> you're right. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar > >>>>>>>>>>>> used for > >>>>>>>>>>>> getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Garlic ,, > >>>>>>>>>>>> any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left > over > >>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>> fixing my maxi egg coddler. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does > it > >>>>>>>>>>>> work? > >>>>>>>>>>>> Allan > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the God > >>>>>>>>>>>>> concept > >>>>>>>>>>>>> much more to the point. :) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then > >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter - > >>>>>>>>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds very man-made to me. ;) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is > much > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>> vivid > >>>>>>>>>>>>> than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's > >>>>>>>>>>>>> true. But > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which > is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> really > >>>>>>>>>>>>> good. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking > about? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/12/4 Allan H<[email protected]> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allan > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Creation with its series of universes. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H<[email protected]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not true the beginning can be pretty much > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pinpointed .. as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than it sounds good. There is more evidence > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spiritual > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realm than parallel universes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allan > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh"<[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuously many universes are being born and many are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dying , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal > time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit > is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-dual. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Andrew, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them > are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattter is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy. To > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no paradox of who created the creator. Before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begining there > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spirt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is all matter comes from spirit. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because matter is manifested as atoms which have > motion > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in them. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also envision pure motion without involving any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms...like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fabric of space, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.energy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and matter is energy. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew > vecsey > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>> read more � > >> > > > > --
