Many people at this site tend to not even realize that they had a source as they insist on absolute knowledge (eg. M.Anderson). Once they have boldly asserted, they have a hard time backing down or accepting any reason to consider it.
I’m not certain which you were calling my “theory”. I used affectance as an example of declaring a rational beginning point for logical reasoning (which is why it was named “Rational Metaphysics”). By having such, assuming that it is inclusive and fundamental enough, there is no infinite regression potential. Is having such a beginning point what you are calling my “theory”? RM doesn’t require that anyone accept affectance, but it does require that any ontology have a definition for existence (an explanation for what is meant by the word “existence”).
Infinite logical regression only takes place when definitions are ignored. It is not required to invent a stopgap definition for the logic chain. It is required to find the one that is already inherently there. I discovered that “affect” was the inherent natural essence of what everyone is thinking of when they refer to “existence”.
Yes. If affectance cannot be found at the root of literally every event throughout the entire universe, it wouldn’t be a sufficient substance to use to define existence. And that is why I can properly bring RM:AO up in literally any and every topic. RM:AO applies to literally every event throughout the universe and the mind of Man. RM:AO is a larger categorical field than Science. It encompasses all of every field of Science, Theology, and Philosophy simply because it is founded upon affectance, the essential substance for existence to be existence.
That is exactly my point. But there are those (at this site even) who can’t understand or accept that notion. They cannot distinguish a word from the thing represented by the word. And when you offer a definition, they think that you are trying to define the thing into being whatever you want rather than merely the word to represent the thing (iambiguous). You cannot define a thing, merely a word to represent it. But they don’t understand that (confusing the map with the terrain). And then immediately accuse you are playing word games and being deceitful.
Exactly. They instinctively feel not merely a slight threat, but also a higher hope that such confidence is fake or unjustified. That is the bait. The hook is felt when they can’t find the flaw they were deeply hoping was there and find themselves out on a frail ego-limb. At that point, most just bail out, but a few attempt in desperation to find even the tiniest flaw with which to thrash you (Eugene Morrow).
I meant that the questioner is resisting the certainty of the source and the defender is resisting the doubt in the source.
What I meant was that it seemed like you were dismissing claims, in general, and universally, that someone can have mainstream ideas, be stuck in common views on poor grounds. IOW any instance accusing anyone else of not being independent in their thinking must be making an error. Such an accusation cannot be justified, it seemed to me you were saying. I disagreed and tried to support this by saying, hey, look, this is common, here are some of the ways this happens.
I wasn’t talking about glamour, more the truth value. One can independently come to a wrong conclusion. NOte: this is not me saying that independent thinking is bad or worse or merely the same as mainstream thinking. Just pointing out that it is a process description - one arrives to some degree independently at a conclusion instead of simply going with the flow of whatever authorities have control of your mind. The latter process can lead one to being right and the former can lead one to being wrong.
Yup, that’s one direction I am going in.
No one might for example notice what actually happens to people on psychotropic meds or in police custody or in psychiatric appointments or how oversight of industry actually occurs or what is not said. These kinds of situations may arise randomly in your life, but most people will not want to notice that what is taking place has little to with justice or rationality or science or what the authorities say is going on at the sociological level in that kind of situation. You might find small or huge clues that the mind, society, the law, is not what they are saying and that the media chronically misses this and the smaller media that do not are marginalized - a la Chomsky’s Manufacture of Consent.
But from there one must also be good at not being swept along by the sub or marginalized herd. And then whatever one does not want to notice because of the emotions it triggers - cause it would mean dad was actually stupid or I have been benefitting from the suffering of others or because I have been radically confused and/or manipulated for a long time and not noticed. The strong feelings of rage and terror, anxiety around being confused and not knowing how to move forward epistemologically and in terms of choices and decisions is too much for most people to feel, even if they can discuss it in the abstract.
Right, OK this is sort of like what I was getting at earlier. Independent thinking is thinking that is willing to mull over positions and ideas that are not mainstream. That one is willing to do this is positive, but it does not mean one’s conclusions will be correct. It does allow one the opportunity to arrive at truths one could not possibly have without being willing and brave enough to do this.
I slid into rant and in a sense combined ideas I had been putting forward in the Spirituality thread with the ones in this thread.
That is definitely one issue. There are reasons people want to say all spiritualities are the same. If they are not, we have all sorts of deeply problematic social, epistemological issues to contend with. If they are saying that all religions are like their religion, I find they generally, totally coincidentally, of course, describe other religions in ways that sound like their religion and not much like the other religions, at least how most followers would describe them and even most experts. Colonialism, taken metaphorically, comes in many forms. Last for now on that track, it is as if the possiblity that different creatures have different life goals, needs, spiritual proclivities and REALLY all want the same thing. I am sorry but I do not think a Native American shaman wants Nirvana. (of course these days, there may be a few who think Buddhism and native pagan animist shamanism can fit together, but I mean in general)
But I understand that while this example is on topic - since there are subgroup mainstream thinkings going on here - I do not want to take your thread off track and focus on spirituality.
I suppose I am raising a couple of issues also. Often people think that if they conform/depend on a subgroups thinking,t hey are thinking independently. One can see this in theist atheist debates where both sides tend to be conformists and their arguments are a mess logically and intuitively The scientist groupies think they are thinking independently because science, in history has only recently taken over the power position, epistemologically, in the West - in certain areas anyway. So they are the mavericks, they think. The religious people in the West can also see themselves as rebelling against the dominant secular technocrat society and thus as independent thinkers. When in fact most of both are simply being good politically correct members of their own team, and do not have a good grasp of epistemology or even, say, the theory of evolution or what the existence of God entails or that there are various versions of both of these things and there are false dilemmas all over their arguments, for example.
So just cause you go against the mainstream does not mean you are thinking independently.
then, yes, the whole issue of rationalist sources of knowledge/intuition, coupled with actually paying attention to reality, then also being able to notice the very quick changes in direction of thinking and feeling, right at the very edge of consciousness, where we avoid what we are scared to notice and feel - about ourselves about what we are experiencing about our feelings and ideas and so on. It is a lot to ask that one is free from hiding stuff from oneself, but one can have the intention of going towards what is avoided - and this requires being able to process emotions at a level most people avoid - and finding out what is actually going on.
Yes, that’s what I had in mind. I’m calling RM:AO your theory as I’m assuming you consider that to come together as a whole package, but I guess you think of the RM part separately from the AO part?
So then one does have to embrace RM:AO in order to avoid the infinite regress.
Well, I’ll agree that resisting certainty isn’t sufficient for independent thinking since resisting might mean not thinking at all.
Ultimately, what I was trying to say was that some people are baffled about why others just “can’t see the truth”, and that this is (partly) a consequence of their taking the projection of their beliefs onto reality for granted. It might make more sense to them if they asked why others just “can’t see my beliefs”. ← At least to that question, an obvious answer comes readily to mind: because not everyone can see into your head.
Of course!
Well then, my first thought on the matter is that intuition is just the brain coming to conclusions without making conscious the steps it took to arrive at those conclusions (though it makes the conclusion conscious). So we end up “knowing” something without knowing how we know it.
The first question is: does a mental process being unconscious bear any implications on whether that process counts as independent thinking or conformity? It could be the exact same process as that going on in a conformist’s mind. It could be the exact same process as that going on in an independent thinker’s mind–only unconsciously. Does it all hinge on the process? If the process is different from most others, is that what counts as independent thinking? But then I can imagine some very different thought processes that are just as dependent on mainstream sources as the more common kinds of thought processes. For example, a paranoid type of person may simply have an intuitive feeling that such-and-such source he encountered on TV is lying, and so disbelieves the source. Being the paranoid type, he disbelieves almost every source he comes across consistently. This might seem like just the opposite of the conformist–believing everything he see, hears, and reads; but nevertheless, it’s just as predictable and consistent as the conformist–his beliefs depend on his sources just as much as the conformist’s, the only difference being the results. So is the paranoid skeptic really an independent thinker, or is he just as dependent as the conformist even though he comes to opposite conclusions?
And this all depends on my interpretation of intuition being right. I prefer naturalized explanations, but we could bring in ESP or paranormal types of intuition, in which case who knows how one arrives at intuitive insights. And the same line of questions comes up here. Does gaining knowledge from an unconventional source (whether paranormal or not) constitute independent thinking? Conformity (it could still be the same thoughts as everyone else)? Could the person be dependent on the source for his beliefs even though they aren’t mainstream (suggesting that being a dependent thinker is not always the same as being a conformist).
Oh, I see what you’re saying. Ability to think logically vs. ability to observe anomalies and counterfactuals to the mainstream without dismissing them. Very good point.
But does not wanting to face these kinds of emotions really make one a conformist?
Well, I’ll repeat the same question: Does not wanting to face these kinds of emotions really make one a conformist?
Yes. RM is a method for ensuring that your ontology is going to be rational. Affectance ontology is merely my first example of an ontology that is rational. Existence could be defined in other ways (as FC was trying to do: “existence = self-valuing”). The only concern is that you define “existence” in a way that turns out to be coherent, comprehensive, and relevant, else the ontology tends to be useless, although not always entirely so (such as Relativity and QM).
Emm… no. I was just saying that because of the way affectance is related to existence, one cannot avoid the subject of affectance. The prerequisite to prevent infinite regression is merely that “existence” be coherently and comprehensively defined.
Yes, and we can black box that process or those processes. Maybe there is direct knowing, maybe there are long built up kinds of knowledge based on empirical observation, but not conscious, maybe there are past life built up expertises, maybe it is insight direct from God, maybe…and so on. Whatever it is we know that these processes exist, and everyone uses them, some people are experts and standouts in certain areas.
Agreed. But let me say this. If you deny intuition, then you cut off an option for being independent and for knowledge. Further intuitive processes are often directly connected to the universe. We are a part of the universe. Now there are all sorts of philosophical problems related to determing if one has good intuition or not (in this or that area or in general) but clearly we all use it effectively somewhere in our lives and some people are experts in specific and some in general.
Sure. The blanket term intuition is really an idea determined negatively. We have not gone through other processes that we can map out.
Nicely put at the end there. That is a good way of summing up the distinction I was getting at in my roundabout way with sub-groups and conforming to those.
And/or you could call it pattern recognition. Often with very few dispersed clues some people can make out a pattern others cannot. In fact all humans do this for example with letter-recognition better than machines. We are able to see a pattern or feel it, even though most of the evidence seems to point to something else. People who are experts at attributing paintings can often recognize a fake or a real one in seconds. They catch the anomolies directly. Shift that as a metaphor to recognizing patterns in society or in what your romantic partner is saying and not saying and so on…and all sorts of important patterns that are mainly hidden or denied publically (by media, by the girlfriend, by Pharma…) can be seen directly. If you are willing to notice. If you are willing to have an opinion that goes against surface or conformist positions. If you have built up the skills or were born gifted in that area of pattern recognition.
It makes you dependent. Using your nice distinction between dependent and conformist. If you cannot really notice yourself you are dependent on someone else’s story even if it is just dad’s or your congregations or the academic world’s but still marginal.
I answer a different way this time. You are handicapped, literally. You cannot take in certain kinds of information and in certain ways. Even more importantly, you will not know why you believe what you do, but will feel compelled to think you are being rational.
You cannot say things like ----------I think this is true, but there are things I am too afraid to evaluate, experience, look at, question that might contadict this. No one will say something like that, even to themselves.
Last you must expend cognitive energy and consciousness to closing the door on what might contradict your belief.
You are crippled, but you might have non-conformist views.
Given that conformism is more likely, you are much more likely to be conformist since you have less avenues of questioning conformist ideas. But if you grew up in a family of non-conformists or were otherwise exposed to non-mainstream ideas more strongly than others, then you would also likely stay there.
Or, if your temperment is rebellious, you might simply jump off for jumping off’s sake.
Being able to feel your own temperment and calibrate given it is another useful skill. Most habits have very strong emotions (and hidden judgments) driving them. To change the judgments you must get under and feel the emotions also. And it takes going through some serious fear to even notice the judgments.
Yes, I can’t count the number of time when I’ve made an assertion, feeling confident and certain, only to find myself struggling to explain how I know it (but being successful in the end).
Well, I’ll leave that up to you. Feel free!
And let me just add that “dependency,” in this context, must mean something a bit more narrow than just “caused” by something. Independence of thought doesn’t mean thought coming out of a void, somehow being above the causal nexus which is the deterministic universe we live in, but more like independence from social pressures and brainwashing effects. It must mean something like the ability to exercise one’s own thought willingly by means of internal processes despite the pressures of external social and media influences (or something like that).
So you mean, the less you know yourself, the less likely you’ll have evidence that others are wrong in attempting to define you or explain you?
I agree, but for the modern, rational (or ‘rational’) ‘science is the only source of knowledge’ the presumption is that we are inside something separate, peering out, like a U-Boast commander, at reality, and making observations through a radically distorting lens. That is their model, when it comes down to it. And it is a useful model, but I think a limited one. I do not think we are separate (only) and we know what’s out there because it is in here also, and for other reasons.
Any explanation will only be partial, of course, and I would be impressed if you could always find out why. I often can’t in any case.
And that’s where I begin to reach for this idea of being a part, connected, of the universe. If we focus on thoughts, it will simply seem like other thoughts, our own or those of others, have created ours even independent ones. But if we are connected, we have a direct conduit to challenge this chain of ideas.
Yes, and the less likely you will know you are avoiding something and the less likely you will be able to distinguish between culture caused perceptions and ones that are not distorted in this way, and the less likely you will know why you are resisting someone’s objection or counterexample and the less likely…it goes on…
Yes, I agree. The five senses are not the only channels through which information gets into the brain. Just basic neutrients carried by the blood get absorbed by the brain and change its functioning, thereby acting as information. Drugs work through this avenue. Naturally occuring neurotransmitters and horomones work this way. It’s not necessarily sensory or cognitive information, but sometimes emotional, sometimes bodily (as in, I’m tired, or I’m hungry), sometimes other things.
or confabulated.
I agree with that last part, but I’m not sure whether you’re agreeing with me overall or not (about my attempt at a definition of “independent thinking”).
I just see a bit of potential here to get a more concrete definition of what “independent thinking” is. Going with my chain of thought above, I definitely think independent thinking involves “internal” cognitive processes–in particular, I think it involves being able to take some time, after something has been told to you (by some authority or otherwise), and reflect on whether you would like to believe it or not–as opposed to passively believing it the minute it is told to you. I think it’s that inner ability to “pause” the inflow of information and wait for it to be actively contemplated before it is processed for belief or disbelief–in other words, taking more control of the process itself. And note that I said it was an exercise in decided what you want to believe, and not just what you think is true after a round of inner rational analysis (although it could be that sometimes).
Now I sense that your point was that, although this internal processing may actually occur, it’s not really internal, not when there’s a whole universe we’re connected to on all sides and constantly being affected by. And to that I say: sure. It’s not really the seclusion of the process that I think makes it “independent thinking”, but merely that there is such a process going on.
Yes, so the more you know about yourself, the more self-control you have, and the less control others have over you.
And then there is Rationalism, with the idea that we can know without experiencing - I tend to be a rationalist who thinks that there is with most knowledge an empirical aspect - though you need to throw in past lives to get a fuller picture of when we experienced things.
I tend to agree, though none of this is a guarantee and further a lot of modern, rational, science focused people do this, but never get at a wide range of assumptions. IOW there are areas they function like this and areas they do not - some of these are meta areas or epistemological ones - and nevertheless they identify themselves as independent thinkers in general. Further all this is impotent if you are cut off from your own emotions, for example. You think you are getting the information, you think you are questioning it, but you are neither in many instances.
I am being very critical here also because I see a common phenomenon with minds like this where they mull over stuff - iow words and sentences shift around in their brains for a while on a specific topic, say, ghosts - then they draw a conclusion, perhaps tentative - and they are done. They will think this means they have an open mind (which may or may not be the same thing as an independent mind) and an independent mind, when in fact the causal chain initiated by the topic HAD NO CHANCE OF CHANGING THEIR MINDS. For several reasons: 1) they will not try to engage in empirical research themselves in the area 2) they lack sophistication in epistemology 3) they do not know themselves, so what they think of as a pretty solid shot at being objective, is actually not that 4) they do not notice the effects of their own unconscious mind on what they consider axioms and deductive reasoning. 5) they often have intimacy problems. In general. Not just with women,f or example, since many are men and the spokesmen are, well, men. But also with other species, nature, their own experience, non-verbal thinking, their emotions, and have some very serious control issues. Control affects what one can experience and how much of an effect what one experiences can have.
When they meet more intuitive types them may seem more open and independent, but actually they are as fixed to their spot as a fundamentalist Muslim.
Not just affected by, but we are that. We have participatory knowledge at the being level not just the doing level.
I would tend to say one has less top down control of oneself. So the full self can inform the full self. Rational than having all these sectioned off portions of the self.
I suppose I am pushing in a couple of directions on the idea of independence: 1) you have all channels open including those from yourself to yourself, which requires the ability to feel yourself fully, which we are trained not to do, especially as it entails expression also. 2) you have the full range of tools to evaluate something, though it may suffice with one in any given instance. I am not sure I like the term independence/dependence, since one can argue that one is always dependent regardess of the number of tools and the full spectrum of channels. Grounded, self-aware, courageous as the base, then intuitive and rational skills and DRIVE on that base.
No, you are confusing subconscious thinking with independent thinking. Subconscious mind is manytimes more filled with prior knowledges than conscious mind. Independent thinking, whatever more or less it ever can be, has to come from conscious mind. It is only conscious mind that starts from almost zero and evolves during lifetime with experiences.
As i said before, independent thinking is inventing the wheel again, having the innocence and curiosity of a child, who just wants to play with every observation/experience without any previous bias.
To think independently means to think your own thoughts. What are your own thoughts? These are thoughts that come from within as opposed to from without. What does it mean that thoughts come from within? It means that they are inherited from your ancestors instead of adopted from your external environment.
To think independently means to build on top of your genetic heritage.
Be careful when using words.
Independent from what, dependent on what?
Independent from your external environment, dependent on your genetic heritage.
Zinnat reverses these terms without ever notifying you about it. This is his trick.
For him, independence is independence from your genetic heritage and dependence is dependence on your external environment.
He wants you to forget everything you know and start from zero so that you can start thinking whatever he wants you to think. This is how he bypasses your critical faculties.
I already explained elsewhere that zinnat is a degenerate.
Just look at that goddamn avatar.
As for gib claiming that we cannot avoid external influence, that is true, but different people deal with this influence differently.
Dependent individuals, the conformists, are easily molded because they are forgetful. They are like zinnat, happy to forget themselves in order to become someone else.
People are afraid that their own thoughts are incorrect, and so, driven by this fear, they end up forgetting themselves and adopting whatever gives them the confidence that they lack.
This is what conformists such as zinnat and iambiguous do.
The question we want to ask is: how does one know whether one’s thoughts are incorrect or not? And what do you do when you realize they are?
You cannot know whether your thoughts are incorrect or not prior to dissonance. Dissonance is how we sense that something is wrong. So we must apply our thoughts to reality, and when we start sensing dissonance, we have to pause and try to identify its source. Once we identify the source, we can take appropriate action. If we identify that the source of dissonance lies in our thoughts, we can tweak them a little and then re-apply them to reality.
This is how learning works. Not by forgetting yourself, but by maintaining yourself, waiting for the opportunity to be created, such that you can tweak yourself just a little bit and see if dissonance will go away.
Conformits lack this patience. They are too abrupt, too ready to give up on everything that makes them uncomfortable and too happy to adopt anything that will make them feel comfortable.
They also want you to be as fearful as they are . . . the slightest bit of courage, and they won’t like you.
So if you stick to your opinions and do not abandon them they will try really hard to make you feel bad about it.
They will try to force you into dissonance hoping it will make you drop your opinions.
They want you to misidentify the source of the dissonance that they create.
They want you to believe that dissonance is created by your own thoughts and not by their own stupidity . . . because if you start thinking it’s your thoughts creating dissonance, you will start doubting yourself.
You don’t seem to understand that noone cares about the POSSIBILITY of being wrong but about being PROVEN that they are wrong. If they are not proven they are wrong, then they simply CANNOT ACCEPT being wrong, even though they MAY be wrong.
What you’re doing here is begging people to question themselves indefinitely.
If I think that the sun is yellow while others think that the sun is pink then I will consider them to be retarded. This is natural. I am not going to question myself simply because others disagree with me.
What’s the point of thinking to yourself “well, maybe I am wrong and maybe they are right”? What’s the fucking point of that?
Sure, I can question myself for fun, I do it sometimes, but that’s the only reason to do it, for fun, not because I have to do it. This “fun” thing is otherwise called “excess of energies”. Even then, you do not question yourself indefinitely, but only to the extent that you need to do so.
REMEMBER: People will hold on to their beliefs so as long there is nothing in their life that contradicts these beliefs.
OF COURSE, you have people who IGNORE contradictions, but that’s another story.
The point is that people do not change their minds until their minds are contradicted. And when contradicted, they have to understand the source of contradiction and only change what HAS to be changed.
But there are lots and lots and lots of people who misunderstand their contradictions who as a result of that become contradictory individuals promoting such stupid ideas as “question yourself indefinitely” and asking themselves stupid questions such as “how can you be certain of what you know?”
When you are contradicted, you must understand the NATURE of contradiction, and resolve it in the way that corresponds to its nature. Misunderstanding your contradiction is further contradiction . . .
For example, many people feel contradicted (in psychology known as “cognitive dissonance”) when they find out that their opinions are different from the popular ones. And because they are unable to endure this contradiction until they can understand it and figure out what’s causing it in the first place such that they can know how to resolve it they succumb to it by dropping their own opinions and adopting the popular ones because by doing so they eliminate the contradiction, thus releasing the tension, which deceives them into thinking they have resolved it. It’s called cheating. It’s like doing push ups without using your arms . . .
Do you think the influence of past lives can somehow be represented physically in the brain? I tend to think that anything spiritual has the potential to be represented physically somehow.
Right. It reminds me of the discussion I got into with James over at the Space is Fake II thread. I explained my views that independent thinking usually comes in an “area of expertise”. No one is really equally independent at thinking in all area at all times.
Yes, they knew the conclusion they wanted to arrive at from the very beginning. It reinforces my view that rationality and thinking are more tools than windows to reality. People often think they are “discovering” the truth with their rational thought processes, thereby seeing things with their own eyes, but they unconsciously choose which thoughts to think and how to string them together, usually to arrive at a position that was predetermined from the beginning.
So you mean intimacy with themselves mainly.
Well, we are connected to the universe just by being part of the universe. That much is obvious. But do you mean that our being allows us to be connected to other possibly distant parts of the universe in an unmediated fashion? Something like quantum entanglement?
Yeah, the term “independent” is problematic in so many ways. As you can see, it’s a struggle to get a clear definition.
Well, like I said to Moreno, the blood carries nutrients, oxygen, water, hormones, neurotransmitters, and even drugs sometimes to the brain. ← The potential is there for information to get in.
But that’s what I’m saying. Independent thinking is an internal conscious process.
I not sure whether you mean this as a good thing or a bad thing.
Do you think this is the primary motive for conforming? That society/media offers a new way of thinking/valuing/believing that makes you “better” than whoever you are? I don’t think conformists are really after anything, I think it’s just a way that the brain works–some people’s brains are more prone to taking in information passively while others filter and manipulating incoming information more actively. Although I think brains can be trained to be more like one than the other.
This makes for a sticky predicament, doesn’t it? How are you then to know whether it really is your own thoughts which are the source of the dissonance or whether it’s really them manipulating you into thinking it’s your own thoughts. I can see a struggle here between trying to be honest, admitting when you’ve been proven wrong, and being suspicious that if you seem to have been proven wrong, it’s really them playing a trick on you. It’s got to require a lot of skill and patience to tell the difference.
Sanjay is just a retard who’s out of touch with reality.
You are a dumb Christian who wants to reduce everything to intent.
Who gives a shit whethr his intent is good or bad when what he is doing is bad? In fact, the fact he thinks he is doing good while doing bad makes him dumber than the one who thinks he is doing bad while doing bad.
They are conformists because they are dumb and dumbness is a necessity, a consequence of being overwhlemed by contradictions.
There is nothing they can do about it.
Their brains are the way they are because their ancestors’ brains have been owned in the past. They are, quite simply, dumb.
But, at the end of the day, just like our main five senses, the effect of all these things also have to go through the nerves of CNS to the brain. So, what is the difference?
Can the brain have inputs from any other source?
Can it bypass CNS/nerves to get information?
Then, perhaps we are defining the term internal differently. By internally, i mean putting all previous knowledge/perceptions aside, and become a blank slate for a moment..
It is beyond being good and bad, though it can be turned out later in either way. It is a trial and error method caused by curiosity, which manifests in the intellect from observation/experience. But, previously formed perception tends to overshadow this ability to see things from the child’s eye, though it never dies completely either, and tends to pop up again and again. Sometimes it turns out good but sometimes bad also.
Why a person smokes or takes drugs for the first time? Does he not know that all these things are not good for him? but, he still goes for those. Why? This is what a child’s curiosity is; let us see what happens. Columbus and captain Cook went for such voyages, which was not only totally unknown and also dangerous to the extent of their lives too. Was it a wise thing to do? Certainly not. How many of us would have been done that? But, they attempted and became successful too. The whole of human race is benefited from their attempt.
Never dying of this habit is precisely what we call free will or original sin. This is Satan’s whisper which forced Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, even being very clearly asked by the God not to do that.
There are only two ways of learning; either by faith or by experience. There is no third way possible. Unlike Angels, God allowed and enabled Adam to learn through trial and error. It is irrelevant whether he goes for right thing or wrong thing. Merely having this capacity puts Adam above Angels. That is precisely why he asked Angels to bow before Adam.
No Angel refused to obey, but Lucifer did. He was the only one amongst the Angels who showed the ability to challenge his previous perception/belief/faith. He heard his internal voice, thought over it objectively, and showed the courage to follow that too, even at the cost of going against his creator. Should a wise entity like An Angel do that? What if if you and me were at his place? That is precisely why the God put humans under him. Other Angels did not deserve to become the incharge of human’s learning.
Physical. Physical, these days, can be anything. Can have any qualities, any. Remember a while ago we had a long discussion about how I didn’t think we are brains, or just brains, that there are huges nexi of nerves in the heart area also in the gut. Do you know that some people have found habits transfered from others from whom they got donated organs for transplant? And then where is this inside us? Where does it end? Are things as separate as they seem? Does entanglement lead to connections and intimacy beyond this bone is conncted to that bone? How small do things go? When people start thinking about ‘physical’ they expect to find something they could toss as a charging bull or put in a thimble? I think it is a waste of time, at this point in the history of science, for example, to get too hung up on ‘physical’.
We are all extricating us from beliefs that have been handed down, jammed in, drawn after torture, assumed and so on. Or we aren’t. To have gotten everything is not easy. Experts have advantages in their area, but also disadvantages, at least if they are professionals in that area.
Yes, and with the added bonus that now they can say they are rational - and often that their opponents are not. This good seal of approval is better than burning your opponents as heretics, but the affects on child-rearing, for example, are still incredibly powerful, and in terms of arriving at independent conclusions simply a new form of failure.
An idealist would certainly view it that way. I do mean intimacy with experiencing anything. Sensory experience, interpersonal experience also.
I do believe that, but that is not quite what I meant. We know about being, we are being. We know about consciousness (hence that of others) we are consciousness. We know about the physical since we are part of the physical, whatever that is. We exist and with this involvement we know things about what else exists. We share things with all other things. From there I do believe in direct connections over distance. A model including that fits my experience better than one that does not.
describe other religions in ways that sound like their religion and not much like the other religions, at least how most followers would describe them and even most experts. Colonialism, taken metaphorically, comes in many forms. Last for now on that track, it is as if the possiblity that different creatures have different life goals, needs, spiritual proclivities and REALLY all want the same thing. I am sorry but I do not think a Native American shaman wants Nirvana. (of course these days, there may be a few who think Buddhism and native pagan animist shamanism can fit together, but I mean in general)