Ah yes ! The Voyager main hull. On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 10:03:42 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>> >> To: [email protected] <javascript:> >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
