This is the oldest known bit of human art. All these eons on and I can't do decent pin men.
<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-MaNvQ2yJJgs/VRK_PFebxaI/AAAAAAAAAHs/YhYxmq92Bws/s1600/joordens_trinil_engravedshelledit.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg> Dogma is very off-putting Allan. Not a bad shape for an inter-galactic air ship, the above work of art. On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:09:46 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > Beautiful.. > > Omnipresent actually is fascinating word.. presence to me is much more > gentle .. omnipresence seems to have an over powering feeling. I do think a > lot of the problems with religions is the dogma and doctrine that people > are adding.. beyond what is there. To accept the existence of God or > presence is enough. > Why is it needed to try and make God more important? The creation of the > entire universe is attributed to God, how much more important can you get? > > > تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين > Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:12 PM > Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Transcendental and Transactional Social (religion > is no special case of either) > > In the sea of love, I melt like salt, Faith, Doubt - they both dissolve. > A star is opening in my heart, The worlds turn in it. > > Rumi > > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 2:13:48 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1499/2055 >> >> Once we realize this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, >> nothing special is left to explain concerning religion. What needs to be >> explained is the much more general question, how it is that we can act so >> much of the time towards visible people in terms of their invisible halo. >> The tool for this fundamental operation is the capacity for imagination. It >> is while searching for neurological evidence for the development of this >> capacity and of its social implications that we, in passing, will account >> for religious-like phenomena. Trying to understand how imagination can >> account for the transcendental social, and incidentally religion, is a >> quite different enterprise to accounting for the religious for itself in >> terms of modules, or core knowledge, which, in any case, we share with >> other primates. Unlike this, imagination does seem to distinguish us from >> chimpanzees and perhaps also distinguishes post-Upper Palaeolithic humans >> from their forebears. >> >> This is from a paper by Maurice Bloch. I have no problem in accepting >> imagination. I wonder what we should do about religious stupidity in the >> transcendental social and that stupidity that cannot distinguish the >> transcendental and transactional social domains? Less corruption in both >> would make life better. >> > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
