Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16461 - 16480 of total 22746 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Jul 24, 2013 - 08:38pm PT
We wish you well, Jan ........
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jul 24, 2013 - 08:39pm PT
wish me luck in maintaining my Boddhisattva cool!

Totally.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 24, 2013 - 08:44pm PT
Me too Jan and wishing well for the dogs and the cat. Flying is hard. So far! Big transitions for all concerned.

Good travels.

DMT
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Jul 24, 2013 - 08:52pm PT
Thanks everyone! I couldn't get ready for the movers even after 6 months so I have to come back over to finish up, but this is Phase 1 and the real worry is if everyone will survive the trip, especially the 10 year old cat.

I'll post again when we get to brokedownclimber's place in Wyoming in about three days. After a week or two of rest there I have to empty out my mother's house in Colorado and finish selling it and then I land in my own house just north of Boulder which I bought off the internet and haven't seen yet. I'm definitely paying for all my years of fun overseas!
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 24, 2013 - 10:12pm PT
Just breath through it, Jan. Surf it all right to the sweet spot.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jul 24, 2013 - 11:18pm PT
The important thing to consider when reviewing either Freudianism or Jungism are the two key questions as regards the ultimate validity of the main idea or theory that each advanced:

1)Does repressed sexuality from early childhood explain most subsequent key aspects of human behavior ?
Do the mechanisms associated with the Freudian model of the mind,namely, the ego, Id, and the superego really exist?

2) Does the collective unconscious really exist? Is there a universal collective human memory that forms the basis of symbols, character types, and sub-conscious motivations?
Do Jungian archetypes really exist? Does the psychological significance of a serpent , for instance,residing in a human collective unconscious , really mean the same thing across varying cultures and individuals?
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Jul 25, 2013 - 06:56am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#312854
Colossians 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.


Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:
“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 25, 2013 - 07:33am PT
Welcome back to the rockies, Jan!


;>)
MH2

climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 07:52am PT
If yuo want to look for unconscious triggers and drivers (what drives behavior) here, look at all the looping around people do, the unconscious plan being that we never move beyond the discursive, and instead spend all kind of time spinning in place and waxing about "better" and so forth, sans growth and expansion.



This post about we old people being unable to change seems stuck on loop.


Hope all goes well for Jan and her companion.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 25, 2013 - 09:01am PT
I had to spend a lot of time, years actually, looking at both Freud and Jung and one thing for sure is, the more you try and boost their material away from the subjective, the less fruitful it will be.

IMO, Jung vastly updated many of Sigmund's ideas while introducing the idea of the collective unconscious, itself a kind of spin on Platonic forms dragged into the experiential arena. Hal and Sidra Stone took basic Jungian models and worked them up into a very cogent psychology as we see in Voice Dialogue.

To answer Ward's question about whether or not sub-personalities exist such as the Id ande Super Ego (commonly called the Inner Critic), check out Embracing your Inner Critic, by the Stones, and Soul without Shame, by Byron Brown.

Owing to a pretty steady sea shift toward Attachment Theory and various incarnations of Self Psychoilogy, Freud and Jung exist mostly as scholastic persuits. Most of Sigmund's stuff has simply been dumped save for his basic framework.

And so far as looping around on our obsession to avoid ever exiting the discursive, this is true, but it is also conscious. If you think you are consciously sticking with the discursive, just tryu and break away from it for five minutes and see the inner and totally unconscious resistance you encounter. Much of it is habitual.

JL

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Jul 25, 2013 - 09:11am PT


Quick thread drift:

"I'll post again when we get to brokedownclimber's place in Wyoming in about three days."...

Let's all of us get together at Vedauwoo, SOON!!!...






Thread drift OVER!!!...

;-)

Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:52pm PT
Largo.

Marlow said:
"Largo seems to be changing style at times, but it's superficial. He is in the domination mode, he has concluded beforehand and he pretends to be learning. When he is confused it is because his facts does not lead to his preconclusion. When that happens he pretends to have been joking or an other act of escaping. Largo is in many ways the LEB of philosophy on this thread and the Mind thread."
--

Largo said:
"Sometimes I have a hard time understanding you Marlow, possibly because your English is strangely phrased.

What your probelem is, I trust, is you're not used to hearing anyone but science types make declarations of any kind, believing as you do that they are the only one who have the "facts" to back up declarations. You lack the experiences to understand differently, so I honestly don't hold it against you. How would you otherwise know? You couldn't. That's the challenge Mike, Jan and I have in presenting some of our ideas. The data was not arrieved at through discursive means, and that's a concept largely lost on those here, who assume anything non-discursive must be intuitive, fuzzy felings, beliefs, or whatever, as opposed to knowing.

While you accuse me of posturing in terms of "learning," I have noticed that you have never asked a single honest qustion, the earmark of someone wanting to learn, and instead are content to toss out things in a transparent passive-aggresive fashion, always aiming at undermining credibility. That's a sneaky game, Marlow, and I'd wager you've learned little to nothing in meantime. I'm afraid you'll have to return to that coner and think it over. I'd expect a little more from a jazz lover.

I've only been confused here in believing that people were actually interested in exploring things beyond the discursive or evaluating mind. In that case I was confused and mistaken indeed. This thread has all the markers of an old-farts club, with me leading the way, mistaken as I was that it was otherwise.

Marlow's answer:

Just to remind you of what you're doing Largo, from the horse's own mouth, since the horse do not remember his own words. The pattern is easily seen all the way in your argumentation: http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1386860&msg=1837901#msg1837901.

Some of Largo's Words from the link:

"Marlow, I am going to flame you every time out because your are an easy mark because you take it all too seriously. Did it ever occur to you that I am intentionally assuming an evangelistic - sartorial tone simply to sound pompous and to c*#k around with this material. I never even revise this stuff. I'm just mostly free associating. Now when you hit your stride with that faux professor tone, you simply cannot expect not to told not to return to your corner with the pointy hat because it's not all that serious."

Yes, Largo's a great pretender.

If you want to, you can just repeat the words "taking it too seriously" - that's part of your pattern when you're stuck. Or maybe you were joking?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:55pm PT
the more you try and boost their material away from the subjective, the less fruitful it will be.

This is manifestly true of one of the main intellectual currents of that period in the late 19th early 20th centuries, namely, a sort of secular Gnosticism in which the true nature of things was assumed to be buried just beneath the surface of observable reality. The world was seen to be a place where both secular and sacred truths (I.e. nouveau sacred) were hidden somewhere slightly beneath the objective surface of perception, behind a dark curtain. The universe was a camera obscura of something deeper, something more instrumentally and mysteriously deterministic ; and could be unravelled only by varieties of arcane knowledge, or specialized insight, or secret initiation into a way of thinking or acting that would duly unlock the fundamental truth of life and the nature of things. A ongoing broad- based revivalism of sorts was occurring .

Spiritualists like Madame Blavatsky come to mind. Yet even Freud , to some extent Jung, and even Einstein were seen as types of Wizard of Oz, or even as modern secular shamans, so to speak. As were most scientists of that period.

If I might indulge in a little hypothesizing here and suggest that this intellectual current, it's links to the faddish subjectivism and occultism of the period, and its out-fall in the popular mind of the time ,were the direct result of the psychological and philosophical impact of scientific discoveries which were absolutely bewildering in their influence upon society in general. To say the least.
Today we have come to take them for granted. But can you imagine in the early 2oth century ,when many people were still getting around on horses ,suddenly being told that the physical universe operates in ways totally outside the observational purview of ordinary garden- variety perception and common sense --as Relativity and the other astounding revelations of science were then beginning to establish.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 25, 2013 - 02:05pm PT
and JL replied to Marlow with:

May 28, 2012 - 01:36pm PT
Marlow, I am going to flame you every time out because your are an easy mark because you take it all too seriously. Did it ever occur to you that I am intentionally assuming an evangelistic - sartorial tone simply to sound pompous and to c*#k around with this material. I never even revise this stuff. I'm just mostly free associating. Now when you hit your stride with that faux professor tone, you simply cannot expect not to told not to return to your corner with the pointy hat because it's not all that serious.

it is getting difficult to know if any of this is to be taken seriously

but if I read the word discursive again my head will explode..
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 25, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
Marlow, what I suspect you and many others want is a rigid, deterministic world that we can consider in strictly literal terms. If something changes, even slightly, then the thing can be thought to have lost it's true identity (being one thing) and to have forgotten it's stripes.

Fact is, the life we actually lead is not a thing but a process. But this is not acceptable to most of the foggies on this thread, who come apart when things don't stay selfsame. Ergo when I tease Marlow for being Marlow then come from a place of conviction the old Norge is thrown for such a loop he must muster proof of my crimes. But one thng is for sure: Marlow will not change or grow one bit. He will stay the very same. That's the unconscious point of spinning on the presentation, and never delving past the veneer. Dive boy, and report back to us. Then yo can be of some real service to this thread, instead of just jogging in place.

And of course this is a circular thread. It can be no other way when people are given a million new doors to explore and they refuse every one of them - and believe this virtuous and rational and scientific blah blah blah. They literally are people climbing the same pitch day after day after day.

And Ward, don't be too in love with your take on the subjective as some cloudy, acracne nebulae requiring special handshakes and horse heads to get a hold of, the implicatioln being we need to get back to the sound stuff of measurments to find the solid ground. You're guessing again about the terrain, or taking the world of 19th century folk. Better to consider what you don't know, what you'd like to know, and posit a few questions. Dredging up 1890-era, western takes on subjective hogwash serves no purpose I can see. Where's the valor in blasting the Madame Blavatsky's of the world?

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 03:25pm PT
And Ward, don't be too in love with your take on the subjective as some cloudy, acracne nebulae requiring special handshakes and horse heads to get a hold of, the implicatioln being we need to get back to the sound stuff of measurments to find the solid ground. You're guessing again about the terrain, or taking the world of 19th century folk. Better to consider what you don't know, what you'd like to know, and posit a few questions. Dredging up 1890-era, western takes on subjective hogwash serves no purpose I can see. Where's the valor in blasting the Madame Blavatsky's of the world?

This is a rough example of wearing your philosophy on your sleeve. Or on your shoulder.
My description above wasn't a critique of subjectivism as such, despite the fact that Madame Blavatsky was more than once seen sporting a Nehru jacket, long before it was cool.

"...Chickenheads to get hold of..." would have been a far better phrase.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Jul 25, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
It can be no other way when people are given a million new doors to explore and they refuse every one of them...

This sort of thing confuses me. Christianity is a door. Am I supposed to wholeheartedly embrace it to find it's deep meaning and true-ness? Or can I just think that it, like every other ancient religion, is about mystical prophesies and control of the masses? Is it a door or just the painting of a door on a brick wall?

I could try meditation. It is a door that I dabbled with for a few minutes once without ever walking through. It was interesting to induce vertigo in myself to the point of feeling like I was spinning around in circle while sitting still.

But there are then 999,998 doors left. There is no time to explore them. Like any person, rational or not, I would have to look at the sign on the door, make a judgement call, and them move on. A few seconds at each door will cost me an eternity in mortal time.

But the whole exercise is probably pointless. We do what our parents taught us or we are led on a different path by cosmic force and end up with some belief system. JL did it. Go-B did it. I did it. The only difference is that some will accept feelings as truth and some will demand specific empirical statistical reproducible proof.

I will repeat that. The only difference between JL, Go-B, me, and others is that some will accept feelings as truth and some will demand specific empirical statistical reproducible proof.

We are otherwise the same. Our brains are either cells or spirit but we are all the same. We ALL reject just about every one of those millions of doors. Or has Go-B and JL decided to look at science and accept that maybe the only truth is what can be proven scientifically and all else is made up human garbage. Nope, they have not, even while preaching that others are closed minded.

Yes, the whole thing is circular. Condemn the other guy for what you yourself cannot do. It goes on.

Dave

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 25, 2013 - 03:49pm PT
I will repeat that. The only difference between JL, Go-B, me, and others is that some will accept feelings as truth and some will demand specific empirical statistical reproducible proof.


Dave, what ever in the world gave you the idea that what I was talking about had anything whatsoever to do with "feelings?"

Your response is what I have refereed to as dishonest because you posit it as a know fact but it is the wildest speculation. For someone steeped only in measuring, truth can only be the result of measuring. This is what you believe. It in no wise makes it true. And the difference between what Go-B and I and Mike and Jan are talking about are as vast as the diference between objective and subjective.

Yes, there are a million doors, but what the real question is, and has always been, is behind one door maked "Who are we?" We can try and objectiy ourselves from the outside, and we can learn a lot of useful information. If that information is enough for you, great.

But here and there you will find yourself at the brink of that huge swirling vortex we call subjective life, the one that threw Dave into virtigo. Some of us will ask: I wonder what goes in there. Really. Beneath all the feelings and thoughts and memories and sensations and content. How might I possibly proceed?

Plain and simple - that's the million dollar question, and it's one that can never be answered from the outside, anymore than we can know about a climb having never seen it or never climbed it. You need specific empirical, experiential proof. Statistics will avail you no ground whatsoever. None. That's for another realm. If it worked in the subjective we would have used it long ago. Of that you may be sure.

The temptation is to project all kinds of fatuous things into the vortex, like Dave did with his "felings." But if you'll notice with the folks on this thread, a step into the vortex itself is explained away a thousand different ways. But verily, that step is never taken. And that's a shame.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 04:26pm PT
But if you'll notice with the folks on this thread, a step into the vortex itself is explained away a thousand different ways. But verily, that step is never taken. And that's a shame.

To my way of thinking this sentiment represents an evangelical subjectivism that puts the non-believer on the clear defensive and is therefore about as popular as a toothache in a Sees candy shop.
The non-believer is by turns an old fart whose failure to embrace this bag-o-pills is not only unfortunate but downright pathetic..

Furthermore, by cutting off the subjective arena of experience from the normal , naturally -based ways in which the validity of ideas and experiences are assessed and processed is the primary reason why this particular pitch is not gaining any traction, resulting in the potential novitiates getting off-schedule.
"Just trust me" the ad man pleads.

It is not the fault of the people on this thread, nor is it the intransigence of their beliefs, nor their age , nor any of the unconvincing, glancing evaluations thus far proffered.

The ad hominem drift is two- sided, which I accept and understand, kinda like a fire burns hotter when 2 logs are side by side than one alone.
When the language becomes extreme ,and differences are not mitigated with a little good-natured humor ( as I did with the Nehru thing) then people become defensive.
Who can have a conversation about the history of ideas with anyone who immediately goes on the offense and defense simultaneously in a frantic need to protect their territory and advance their pawn?


.
.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 25, 2013 - 04:51pm PT
To my way of thinking this sentiment represents an evangelical subjectivism that puts the non-believer on the clear defensive and is therefore about as popular as a toothache in a Sees candy shop.

The non-believer is by turns an old fart whose failure to embrace this bag-o-pills is not only unfortunate but downright pathetic..


This is where you have it entirely wrong, IMHO. The above posits the subjective and any subjective adventures as a kind of "belief," or some far-fangled reality that lies outside of our normal purview. Some "way out" vista reserved for hippes and dreamers dissassociated from the nuts and bolts work of measuring and evaluating.

But the fact is, Ward, you and everyone else are always tettering on the brink of the subjective vortex because that is, inescapably, where we all live. We are first and formost subjects of our experience. When we make our rational minds the primary focus of our experience, we can construct wonky divisions between our objective lives - whereas "we" are bio machines that we can objectify from the outside with statistics and probablilities - and the actual, down to earth, subjective and experiential lives we actually lead which keep on keeping on no matter what we think or feel or do.

"Evangelical subjectivism" as Ward calls it is simply me reminding you that you are tottering on the brink of the subjective vortex, and that you have nothing to fear and much to gain if you take the counterintuitive step to embrace it from the inside. It's right there in your face every breath you take. It is inescapable. It is not somethig you need believe in and it will never go away so long as you are alive.

Meanwhile people cling to the discursive like a life raft, tottering on the brink of the subjective and projecting all kinds of things into the heart of their very own experience, but rarely if ever taking a step in that direction save for narrow focusing on "things."

It's fine if you're on the defensive. That's the point. You're defending your right to keep yourself out of the vortex of your actual life. I don't blame you. But on some level it actually is pathetic that we don't at least work the fringes of what you wake up with and fall asleep with every day of your life: Your subjective core.

What is it? What lies in there? How do things arise in my awareness? What is awareness and how does it work in my actual experience? What is greater than the parts? What the hell is really going on inside of me?

If I am accused of being an evangalist by bringing attention to the whirling center of our lives, so be it. But leave off insinuating that what I am talking about is some distant land found in Wu Wu. It's nothing more than what gave Ward Trotter vertigo form the sheer vastness of the borderless terrain.

As the saying goes: How you ain't gonna never be curious 'bout your own life, Holmes? Not the life in yo' head, but the one you be livin'.

JL
Messages 16461 - 16480 of total 22746 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