Politics, God and Religion vs. Science


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14261 - 14280 of total 22819 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Jun 1, 2013 - 05:58pm PT
The best part of math research is the speculative part, the "what if" part from which exploratory efforts can be formulated. Since retirement in 2000 I've played with mathematical concepts in lieu of carving wooden ducks, and Here is an example: open the second note on Zeno Integrals and read about halfway down "Now, imagine a function . . ." , which opens a path of exploration. Trivial stuff but great fun.

Any kind of intense concentration can produce this selfless state and it's a kind of everyman's contact with something greater than himself (his "I")

the only thing I have repeatedly said to you and others, in so many words, is simple a reitration of, "You can't think your way to heaven."

This still appears to suggest that the "emptyness state" (ES) is superior to other states of consciousness. I disagree.

But in two years, we've seen no movement in that direction. And that amazes me given that this is a thread full of adventurers

OK, JL is talking about the ES I suppose. There are many other unusual states of consciousness that I contend are of "equal value" if that makes any sense. One is the state arising in math or physics research, in which the hours fly by and great satisfaction or great frustration may occur. Another is the "flow" climbers enjoy in the right circumstances. And another is one I've mentioned before and asked John for his opinions: the separation of "I-consciousness" from the physical body (or the sensation thereof).

When I had this experience a number of times years ago I felt the most amazing freedom, as if I were pure will untethered to the constraints of the physical world but nevertheless in it in some way. I viewed my sleeping body as I would view any other bit of common matter. It seemed dead, but I knew it wasn't. This would seem to be the polar opposite of John's experience of the "I" melting away leaving one in some sort of exquisite vacuum. I contend my experience was just as profound as John's. And neither really brought us closer to any kind of fundamental reality.

And I realize that in esoteric meditation practices my experience was an illusion common at some point, to be overcome if "progress" was to be made. Again, I disagree. The stage I experienced was just as "valid" as a more "advanced" stage. Merely different. Neither IMHO is anything more than mental phenomena.


Somewhere out there
Jun 1, 2013 - 06:00pm PT
For us to resurrect the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and to plead His blood is the most powerful power in the universe. And it should not be discussed lightly.

 Blueblocker - Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are in anyway more than just mere human beings. And…. Let us not forget that we are posting this shite on a climbing website forum… That, to me, is as "lightly" as it gets.

Nice word play, though. If only this statement could have any real meaning behind it. Things like "to resurrect the resurrection" and "most powerful power in the universe" are most meaningless of meanings.


You speak in such heavy symbolism with a vast pallet of metaphor…

Problem is… it goes nowhere without a human being involved. In other words a human isolated in a box does not know this vast and unequaled "super-knowledge" that you got that none of the rest of us have (even with all the knowledge being readily available to all who seek to know the knowledge).

Jibber-jabber speaks to me just the same as any true believer and the believers always fail to say anything meaningful to anyone other than themselves…..

Just like me…. Just like any other human being.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 1, 2013 - 06:33pm PT
Sometimes when I write poetry I enter this state in which I can almost hear a voice urging me to suspend all resistance to the flow of words. When this happens, if only rarely, the words suddenly are already there. The words, and sometimes entire lines ,are effortlessly automatic. I hurry to get them out lest the magic is interrupted and I am back to ordinary sifting and garden-variety calculation.
This happened to me on this very site while penning this poem not long ago:

The Mountains of My Dreams

The highland Santa Lucia
breaches the bench of earth and sky
with ancient crests framed in
scrub outlines
and open slopes.

It was from that world above
atop the grand and open vistas
where once dreams were fetched
from dark profiles
and deep slumbers

I must have dreamt the unmoving
mist as it gathered near
an unnamed summit
drawing to itself the lighter fragments
of motion and light

It was a mist concealing
a spirit once speaking not in words
but in unfathomable contours ,giving way
to even deeper contours downslope
beyond the oaken ridge.

Was it the language of my
childhood mind as I sought to
wrangle a meaning from this alien
landscape ,so as to make it
my own?

If so, where did I sleep?
how did I enter that magical terrain
how did I know its depth
like I know the
flat of my open hand?

These are the mountains of my dreams
rising in one solitary tone
in consort with a thousand unheard voices
voices that out - sing
even the sea.

Credit: Ward Trotter

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 1, 2013 - 07:19pm PT

This still appears to suggest that the "emptyness state" (ES) is superior to other states of consciousness. I disagree.

I never said that for the simple reason that emptiness is the fundamental nature of the mind. States have to do with the perspective or content or point of view. Emptiness is only a state when the discursive mind tries to frame it by virtue of what it is processing or how it is processing.

I have actually only made two declarative assertions.

A: There are realms for which you can NEVER arrive by way of discursive reasoning or processing or thinking.

B: Most people don't believe this atg all, though this disbelief is, strangely, never based on direcdt experience with non-discursive realms, but is in fact more speculation based on discursive reasoning or experiences in cognitive adventures. Here lies the closed loop nobody wants to break.

I would just point out that this is not "you" saying so. The discursive mind simply does not believe that there is anything out of its reach or purview. Nothing. So naturally you'll think what the discursive mind tells yo to say: That what I am talking about is "known" by all, experientially, but though a cognitive process.

I understand this, loudly and clearly, that you believe this is entirely the case.


Jun 1, 2013 - 08:43pm PT
There are realms for which you can NEVER arrive by way of discursive reasoning or processing or thinking.

How do you know? How much do you know about discursive reasoning/processing/thinking in minds other than your own?

Jun 1, 2013 - 09:10pm PT
There are realms for which you can NEVER arrive by way of discursive reasoning or processing or thinking

OK. Assume I accept that. But I don't see why that makes it attractive to seek those realms. Of psychiatric value perhaps? What makes those realms significant? Do they show us our "true" nature? I hope not, for that leaves us completely helpless and vulnerable in the physical world.

Is it possible this ES was discovered ages ago and revered as an escape from a cruel social and physical environment?

Just curious.

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 1, 2013 - 11:01pm PT
I'll try and reply to these questions tomorrow when I have more energy but for the moment, simply note that here we have a totaly eruption of the rationalist stance which once and for all is challenging the notion that there is any limitation to discusive reasoning.

A pasting idea: Ed talks about empiricism but what he means is the John Locke article. Some time back, this meant that knowing "comes only or primarily from sensory experience." Modern empiricism emphasizes evidence (or content) as discovered in experiments. That is, all hypotheses must be tested against observations of the material world. Put differently, empiricism in this light is a discursive process to discover things about things, and when the topic of the mind is brought up, quite naturally the reflex is to posoit the mind as a thing and to have the discursive mind have at it.

The problem with this is that while this is the only way to wrangle physical reality, it never lets you exit the discursive loop, and so we're left in a kind of trance state believing that the dimension or nature of mind is calibrated after a fashion on content and rationality, with a few interesting other things tossed in like awareness and choice and self direction.

And so the first order of business is to get some detachment from the rational mind so you can watch it and see what's up. If you never manage this, you will swear up and down that discursive mental processes are the ne plus ultra of the whole shooting match.

Not so.

More later.



Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Jun 2, 2013 - 01:52am PT

The "Dark Flow" & the Existence of Other Universes --New Claims of Hard Evidence

Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by a cosmic map of background radiation data gathered by Planck telescope. This past week, the first 'hard evidence' that other universes exist has been claimed to have been found by cosmologists studying the Planck data. They have concluded that it shows anomalies that can only have been caused by the gravitational pull of other universes.
"Such ideas may sound wacky now, just like the Big Bang theory did three generations ago," says George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at Cambridge University."But then we got evidence and now it has changed the whole way we think about the universe."

Scientists had predicted that it should be evenly distributed, but the map shows a stronger concentration in the south half of the sky and a 'cold spot' that cannot be explained by current understanding of physics. Laura Mersini-Houghton, theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005. Mersini-Houghton will be in Britain soon promoting this theory and, we expect, the hard evidence at the Hay Festival on May 31 and at Oxford on June 11.

Dr Mersini-Houghton believes her hypothesis has been proven from the Planck data that data has been used to create a map of light from when the universe was just 380,000 years old. "These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang," she says. "They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen."

Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit writes in his blog, "Not Even Wrong," that in recent years there have been many claims made for “evidence” of a multiverse, supposedly found in the CMB data. "Such claims often came with the remark that the Planck CMB data would convincingly decide the matter. When the Planck data was released two months ago, I looked through the press coverage and through the Planck papers for any sign of news about what the new data said about these multiverse evidence claims. There was very little there; possibly the Planck scientists found these claims to be so outlandish that it wasn’t worth the time to look into what the new data had to say about them.

"One exception," Woit adds, "was this paper, where Planck looked for evidence of 'dark flow'. They found nothing, and a New Scientist article summarized the situation: 'The Planck team’s paper appears to rule out the claims of Kashlinsky and collaborators,' says David Spergel of Princeton University, who was not involved in the work. If there is no dark flow, there is no need for exotic explanations for it, such as other universes, says Planck team member Elena Pierpaoli at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “You don’t have to think of alternatives.'"

"Dark Flow" sounds like a new SciFi Channel series. It's not! The dark flow is controversial because the distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for it. Its existence suggests that some structure beyond the visible universe -- outside our "horizon" -- is pulling on matter in our vicinity.

Back in the Middle Ages, maps showed terrifying images of sea dragons at the boundaries of the known world. Today, scientists have observed strange new motion at the very limits of the known universe - kind of where you'd expect to find new things, but they still didn't expect this. A huge swath of galactic clusters seem to be heading to a cosmic hotspot and nobody knows why.

Cosmologists regard the microwave background -- a flash of light emitted 380,000 years after the universe formed -- as the ultimate cosmic reference frame. Relative to it, all large-scale motion should show no preferred direction. A 2010 study tracked the mysterious cosmic 'dark flow' to twice the distance originally reported. The study was led by Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

"This is not something we set out to find, but we cannot make it go away," Kashlinsky said. "Now we see that it persists to much greater distances - as far as 2.5 billion light-years away," he added.

Dark flow describes a possible non-random component of the peculiar velocity of galaxy clusters. The actual measured velocity is the sum of the velocity predicted by Hubble's Law plus a small and unexplained (or dark) velocity flowing in a common direction. According to standard cosmological models, the motion of galaxy clusters with respect to the cosmic microwave background should be randomly distributed in all directions. However, analyzing the three-year WMAP data using the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, the authors of the study found evidence of a "surprisingly coherent" 600–1000 km/s flow of clusters toward a 20-degree patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.

The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow.

"We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.

The unexplained motion has hundreds of millions of stars dashing towards a certain part of the sky at over eight hundred kilometers per second. Not much speed in cosmic terms, but the preferred direction certainly is: most cosmological models have things moving in all directions equally at the extreme edges of the universe. Something that could make things aim for a specific spot on such a massive scale hasn't been imagined before. The scientists are keeping to the proven astrophysical strategy of calling anything they don't understand "dark", terming the odd motion a "dark flow".

A black hole can't explain the observations - objects would accelerate into the hole, while the NASA scientists see constant motion over a vast expanse of a billion light-years. You have no idea how big that is. This is giant on a scale where it's not just that we can't see what's doing it; it's that the entire makeup of the universe as we understand it can't be right if this is happening.

The hot X-ray-emitting gas within a galaxy cluster scatters photons from the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Because galaxy clusters don't precisely follow the expansion of space, the wavelengths of scattered photons change in a way that reflects each cluster's individual motion.

This results in a minute shift of the microwave background's temperature in the cluster's direction. The change, which astronomers call the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (KSZ) effect, is so small that it has never been observed in a single galaxy cluster.

But in 2000, Kashlinsky, working with Fernando Atrio-Barandela at the University of Salamanca, Spain, demonstrated that it was possible to tease the subtle signal out of the measurement noise by studying large numbers of clusters.

In 2008, armed with a catalog of 700 clusters assembled by Harald Ebeling at the University of Hawaii and Dale Kocevski, now at the University of California, Santa Cruz, the researchers applied the technique to the three-year WMAP data release. That's when the mystery motion first came to light.

The new study builds on the previous one by using the five-year results from WMAP and by doubling the number of galaxy clusters.

"It takes, on average, about an hour of telescope time to measure the distance to each cluster we work with, not to mention the years required to find these systems in the first place," Ebeling said. "This is a project requiring considerable followthrough."

According to Atrio-Barandela, who has focused on understanding the possible errors in the team's analysis, the new study provides much stronger evidence that the dark flow is real. For example, the brightest clusters at X-ray wavelengths hold the greatest amount of hot gas to distort CMB photons. "When processed, these same clusters also display the strongest KSZ signature -- unlikely if the dark flow were merely a statistical fluke," he said.

In addition, the team, which now also includes Alastair Edge at the University of Durham, England, sorted the cluster catalog into four "slices" representing different distance ranges. They then examined the preferred flow direction for the clusters within each slice. While the size and exact position of this direction display some variation, the overall trends among the slices exhibit remarkable agreement.

The researchers are currently working to expand their cluster catalog in order to track the dark flow to about twice the current distance. Improved modeling of hot gas within the galaxy clusters will help refine the speed, axis, and direction of motion.

Future plans call for testing the findings against newer data released from the WMAP project and the European Space Agency's Planck mission, which is also currently mapping the microwave background.

Which is fantastic! Such discoveries force a whole new set of ideas onto the table which, even if they turn out to be wrong, are the greatest ways to advance science and our understanding of everything. One explanation that's already been offered is that our universe underwent a period of hyper-inflation early in its existence, and everything we think of as the vast and infinite universe is actually a small corner under the sofa of the real expanse of reality. Which would be an amazing, if humbling, discovery.

The Daily Galaxy via Peter Woit, New Scientist, and JPL.

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Jun 2, 2013 - 04:26am PT
I think jgill brings up some very interesting questions about meditation and altered states..

Why is the emptiness state considered superior to any other extraordinary state?

The only answer I can give is that the system of evaluation was set up by people who had been through all the states and concluded that the last one reached was the best. Of course people tend to become attached to what they have invested the most time in. All systems seeking enlightenment as opposed to a dualistic experience of God, say that the last attachment to be overcome before enlightenment is the desire for enlightenment. Those who focus on a deity, say that the relationship with the deity is egoless and naturally accompanied by enlightenment.

Eastern schools of thought in particular, believe that we have many lives to get there so whatever experience or level we are at in a given lifetime, is the right one for us in our current state of consciousness. From my own observations what all states have in common is that they give us freedom from our identification with our habitual patterns of mind.

What is the point of it all?

This depends on the individual meditator. Everything from improving sports performance, to greater personal happiness, to an idealistic search for ultimate reality to a sense of adventure to a sense of elitism based on doing what the masses can't or won't. Also included are a perceived love of God and the wish to get closer.

Is it a form of escapism?

It can be for some people and attachment to zoning out in meditation is said to be a detrimental attachment to those who are attracted to it. Most people feel that meditation enhances them and their mundane life in some way whether through perceptions, cognition, creativity, athletic performance, spirituality or whatever.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 2, 2013 - 10:20am PT
But is it just another dead end?
I say it is. (IMO)
The Eastern Religions claim you must reach enlightenment to find the ultimate goal.

Apparently they were wrong, there is nothing to find there, because you can never reach that point, it doesn't exist.

Like the Western Religions, the basic premise is based on mythology.

Hebrews 1:3
Jun 2, 2013 - 10:46am PT

It's all in your mind baby
Little bit of daydream here and there
Oh !

Jun 2, 2013 - 11:35am PT
All systems seeking enlightenment as opposed to a dualistic experience of God, say that the last attachment to be overcome before enlightenment is the desire for enlightenment.

I may misunderstand the use of the word 'attachment' here. Does this mean that the path to enlightenment means giving up at an earlier stage whatever attachment(s) the seeker had to other people? Giving up a feeling of being in the same boat as the rest of humanity?

Jun 2, 2013 - 11:40am PT
Attachment and desire can never ever be given up.

They are both eternal also.

Due to poor fund of real knowledge one "thinks' they must be given up completely.

Can never ever be done.

One must redirect their desires and attachments to the ultimate truth and dovetail ones desires and attachments to the ultimate truth.

Then one will become successful .......
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 2, 2013 - 11:49am PT
re: free will
re: distinguishing brain from mind

This article should be read as a case study in philosophical confusion



Recall your chemistry. Amazing photo of chemical bonds...


"We should all be proud that our species can do something like this."
-Jerry Coyne

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 2, 2013 - 01:24pm PT
Where does the discursive mind leave off? And more importantly, why, and how does this happen? I’ll get into this discussion by way of a paraphrased article by Andrew M. Ryan I recently read and saved on my desktop.

To understand mind it’s helpful to look at the concepts of infinity, an inherently irrational concept to the discursive. Though we may understand in a strictly formal sense what the word infinity means, our discursive minds cannot get around such a boundless quality so we lack an accurate representation IN our minds. Put differently, infinity cannot fit INTO our minds because we have the thing bass-akwards. Our minds ar infinite, and anything inside is discrete. The best our discursive mind can do with infinity is acknowledge that, however far it goes, it can always go farther.

In the same sence that our discursive minds can’t get “its arms” around anything truly boundless, the machinery of logical and mathematical reasoning also seems to break down when applied to infinity. For instance, the cardinality (size) of all infinite sets is the same, regardless of how those sets are defined. For example, the set of all integers is the same size as the set of all odd numbers, even though, intuitively, it seems like there should be twice as many of the former as the latter. The even numbers are missing from the set of odd numbers, but not missing from the set of integers. Therefore, the set of integers must, in some sense, be the larger of the two, even if we concede that both are infinite. But how could one infinite set be any larger than another? They both go on forever. Such a paradox introduces the idea trying to impose numerical correlates onto infinite qualities is at the very least problematic, while quantifying discrete quantities is really the pay dirt for quantifiers.

These sorts of paradoxes are interesting, but they are only relevant outside of pure mathematics if there are, in fact, genuine infinities in the physical world. Currently, infinities are largely rejected by physicists as meaningless, and it’s my understanding that none of the accepted laws of nature require them. On the contrary, an infinite answer to an equation describing a physical phenomenon is regarded as evidence of a mistake.

The reason for infinity getting short shrift is that quite naturally and correctly, physicists are looking only into the physical world, and the discursive mind can only deal with discrete things. To our rational selves, infinity is a non-starter.

That much said, consider for a moment that Mind itself is a kind of infinite field. It is, but lacking experiences for you to know as much, or that there is a higher knowing than discursive reasoning, you can just look at this metaphorically.

Within this boundless field of awareness (our sense organs have limits, but not awareness itself) are various data streams, such as feelings, sensations, memories, touch, taste, and of course, the constant mental grinding of the discursive mind. Now how, we ask, does the discursive mind actually do its business. Much as we humans do all of our business: one thing at a time. Even when multi-tasking, we simply flit from the thing and back to another. We never can actually play, with any faculty, two songs at once, or climb an offwidth crack and work on composing a sonnet at the same time. We can go back and forth, but we might pitch off the crack and the sonnet will likely be piss poor. Our discursive minds, then, are designed to focus on one task at a time. The admonishment to “pay attention” is basically telling someone to focus on one thing.

How deos this work? Consider your awareness to be like an aperture on a camera that can focus from infinity down to macro. Anytime the discursive mind has to buckle down, our awareness aperture narrow focuses down to one thing and stays like that so our discursive mind can concentrate its effort in a discrete and limited way. Going back to the visual metaphor, we can only photograph one thing at a time. A rose, say, or whatever our lens is focused on. Same with the discursive mind. It works best when steadily focused on a problem, then allowed to relax into an unfocused state for a bit to regroup, then it focuses down once more. The point here is that without the aperture of awareness narrowing down to this or that, the conscious discursive mind is largely ineffective. Most people, when really baring down, need quiet and no distractions that can pull open their focus onto needles distractions.

Now given that the discursive mind functions by way of narrow focusing on discrete things, how can we expect it to inform us about Mind, which is neither a thing nor a bounded quality? Note that the discursive mind will reject this outright. Simply know that this is how it works.

Anyway, say we want to examine Mind. For most all of us that means to focus our discursive minds NOT on Mind qa Mind, but on content/objective functioning, or some discrete aspect of brain function, since a boundless quality cannot fit inside a bounded discursive mind. The discursive mind must always pull something out of the soup to look at and study and quantify, and if it wants to know the forest, it will know so by way of the trees. But this strategy cannot work with Mind, because while a forest is about content (trees), Mind itself in totally empty, inherently devoid of any thing. As no thing, Mind is also Nothing at all, another paradox.
What’s more, the if the discursive mind was to ever get a perspective on the whole, it would somehow have to include itself in the infinite frame, to revisit our photography metaphor, meaning it would have to transcend being a subject discretely quantifying, and expand out to a boundless omniscient POV including itself. And as we saw early on, the discursive mind can only whistle one tune at a time, and as we have seen later on, you cannot discursively get jiggy with boundless qualities without cutting them down to size, into digestible bits, because that’s what discursive/quantifying actually is. Put differently, no photographer can fit EVERYTHING in one picture, because a picrture by nature has a frame which limites what's inside.

So how do you get jiggy with infinite qualities, which is our fundamental nature, our “face before we were ever born?”

The process happens by way of the back door. You’re told to simply sit down, keep your eyes open, watch your breathing and whatever comes into your mind, just let it go, let it grind, let it ramble, making no effort to move toward or to move away from the discursive juggernaut. You will invariably spend some amount of time locked into the discursive mind in an attempt for it to see itself. Then finally your awareness will break free and you can just watch and be with it rambling along and you won’t be fused to it via narrow focus. It’s just another tree in the forest along with feelings, sounds, etc.

Eventually you realize that you cannot look at or examine Mind with any accuracy because the second you try, you once more become a subject narrow focusing on some aspect of the whole. But what you can learn to do is to abide with, or be present with your own boundless nature, but this is very subtle work and for most of us it requires years, the impulse to narrow focus and to “find out” is so strong.


Jun 2, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
Thank you, Jan, for your reply to my questions. That was quite instructive.

That much said, consider for a moment that Mind itself is a kind of infinite field. It is, but lacking experiences for you to know as much, or that there is a higher knowing than discursive reasoning, you can just look at this metaphorically

John, your commentary about infinities is entertaining but would have been more appropriate some 2,500 years ago when scholars were indeed concerned about such things. IMO, when you revert to metaphysical theory (infinite fields, unborn fields, quantum stuff & flux, etc.) you weaken your argument trying to convince us to attempt a meditative descent into the pit of no-thingness. Your metaphysics tends to irritate our rational minds. We are, after all, only human.

But you do seem to enjoy metaphysics and you write well. It's good to see someone doing what they like. Oh, I like your comment that there is a "higher knowing." Good to see you are not making value judgements.

Somewhere out there
Jun 2, 2013 - 02:11pm PT

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jun 2, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
Does John mean a god is the "higher knowing"?

or that the meditative induced change of consciousness from discursive "to" is the higher learning?

I have asked john a couple of times if he puts himself with the group that believes in a god of the traditional notion, responsible for an afterlife, the ultimate creator of the universe, able to intervene or choose to ignore human pleas, etc

but he does not answer me on this although I wish he would just so I know..

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 2, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
Ed asked "why is this necessary?" to ever deatch from the discursive mind, when that mind is talling you it can do everything?

I look at this as a kind of trance state, a kind of cult of mind which will never let the subject escape till death do we part.

If you ever want to experince mental freedom, you must bust out of enmeshment to the parts.

Lastly, I tried to supply some very tangible examples of how the discrsive mind works, and where it falters. This is hardly metaphysical, as John suggested, but is easily verifiable for anyone who takes a few momnents and checks their process - now, or 2,500 years ago, the discursive narrow focusing has not changed a lick.


Jun 2, 2013 - 05:23pm PT
I look at this as a kind of trance state, a kind of cult of mind which will never let the subject escape till death do we part.

OK, at least some clarity here: Reason as a cult.

Sounds vaguely like the Middle Ages.

And yes, Norton, all this sounds very religious to me. Do we partake of the mind of God when we assemble "things" out of quantum stuff & flux?
Messages 14261 - 14280 of total 22819 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews