gods and drugs
misha
> : Daryl Yee (dkn...@cyberway.com.sg) wrote:
> :
> : : Does anybody think that there is more than just 1 GOD ?
> : : (Good or bad...so on and so forth)
>
that's a very hard question, but if i understand it the way you
mean it, then no. . .if god is all powerful - all there is,
and you add another, equal in strength/power, then they together
will compromize 'GOD'.
to think about these things, you have to dissolve logic, common sense,
a set of rules, regularity. for example, you will never understand the
infinite if you try to see BIG numbers. the beginning or end are simply
inventions that we made up to help us make sense of this world...so are
numbers. . nor is anything separate. .i don't believe in a dualistic
world.
we are all one. it's a shift in thought.
read some Dao literature. it's very good about god.
> To me, Godhead is capable of being touched through experience of Beauty, but then
> Eye am a hopeless romantic. This "Universe of constant dualistic conflict" seems
> to me a way to easy way out, as does the "Universe of movers and shakers", the
> mechanistic view. Mystery is, and its darned fascinating.
i agree with you on this. when i couldn't make sense of things, the
"universe of movers and shakers" as you very well put it, made so much
sense to me, and i stopped believing in anything that was not
immaterial..
i even didn't think that 'I' existed at all. . . now i see science as a
great
achievement of man kind, but too narrow to see the 'whole picture'.
science
will only go so far at understanding the 'truth'.
Richard Grant
misha wrote:
> the beginning or end are simply
> inventions that we made up to help us make sense of this world...
I wouldn't go that far. The big bang -- i.e. the beginning of
Everything -- is not exactly an idea that we are imposing upon the
cosmos. It's an idea that we are reading in the stars; it seems to be
one of the fundamental meanings of the universe. Physical reality
appears to have come about in a primal creative moment -- like a work
of art, a thing that was brought into being out of nothingness. And
to me this is an infinitely cooler thought than the Platonic (and I
think anal-retentive) notion of a fixed universal order without
beginning or end. If the Tao which <misha> cites is any guide, the
world is characterized by flow, by movement, by process.
I wish however that the plumbing of my new apartment at least was
characterized by infinite stability.
Cheers -- r.g.
--
"Scientific people are always curious and I am going to be scientific.
I keep saying to myself, 'What is it? What is it?' It must be
something. It can't be nothing! I don't know its name so I call it
Magic." (THE SECRET GARDEN) http://www.midcoast.com/~treehaus
Terry E Olsen
misha wrote:
>
> > : Daryl Yee (dkn...@cyberway.com.sg) wrote:
> > :
> > : : Does anybody think that there is more than just 1 GOD ?
> > : : (Good or bad...so on and so forth)
> >
> that's a very hard question, but if i understand it the way you
> mean it, then no. . .if god is all powerful - all there is,
> and you add another, equal in strength/power, then they together
> will compromize 'GOD'.
What can you or I know, actually KNOW about GOD?
I for one am glad to tell you what I know. I know nothing at all about
GOD the all powerful sort of GOD.
I do know we people can have sexual spiritual experiences. That which is
between man's legs can be considerd god for purposes of sexually
spiritual experiences.
AshGaKaLinGaHopPeR
misha <ml...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>> : Daryl Yee (dkn...@cyberway.com.sg) wrote:
>> :
>> : : Does anybody think that there is more than just 1 GOD ?
>> : : (Good or bad...so on and so forth)
>>
reflection of the One which is None.
Ash---------------------------------------"It only hurts if you let it"
JUST SAY NO TO DRUMS!!!---Join the Partnership for a Drum Free Amerika
------------------------------------------------<dvo...@ix.netcom.com>
misha
dear terry,
Terry E Olsen wrote:
>
> misha wrote:
> >
> > > : Daryl Yee (dkn...@cyberway.com.sg) wrote:
> > > :
> > > : : Does anybody think that there is more than just 1 GOD ?
> > > : : (Good or bad...so on and so forth)
> > >
> > that's a very hard question, but if i understand it the way you
> > mean it, then no. . .if god is all powerful - all there is,
> > and you add another, equal in strength/power, then they together
> > will compromize 'GOD'.
> > Let me ask this in response to "MORE THAN 1 GOD ?"
> What can you or I know, actually KNOW about GOD?
we know absolutely nothing about gods. and i never said that i did. i
was simply working with an assumption. something like: let's suppose
that there is a GOD. daryl wanted to know if you could have another GOD.
just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
> I for one am glad to tell you what I know. I know nothing at all about
> GOD the all powerful sort of GOD.
personally i don't believe in god or anything that starts with prefix
OMNI either.
cheers!
Terry E Olsen
AshGaKaLinGaHopPeR wrote:
>
> misha <ml...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >> : Daryl Yee (dkn...@cyberway.com.sg) wrote:
> >> :
> >> : : Does anybody think that there is more than just 1 GOD ?
> >> : : (Good or bad...so on and so forth)
> >>
> reflection of the One which is None.
>
> Ash---------------------------------------"It only hurts if you let it"
> JUST SAY NO TO DRUMS!!!---Join the Partnership for a Drum Free Amerika
> ------------------------------------------------<dvo...@ix.netcom.com>
I like it Ash. well said.
tOrchie
misha wrote:
> we know absolutely nothing about gods. and i never said that i did. i
> was simply working with an assumption. something like: let's suppose
> that there is a GOD. daryl wanted to know if you could have another GOD.
>
> just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
> and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
<which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
-=tOrchie=-
"Time will be ending;
Life's a crusade
for a consciousness rising
out of desperate state."
Terry E Olsen
tOrchie wrote:
>
> misha wrote:
> > we know absolutely nothing about gods. and i never said that i did. i
> > was simply working with an assumption. something like: let's suppose
> > that there is a GOD. daryl wanted to know if you could have another GOD.
> >
> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>
> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
>
But the reason we know it is because we know.
We assign agreed upon symbols to express a concept. The idea of 2, a
quatity greater than one and less than 3. That would be a concept, an
idea, a non-concrete noun.
Then we have addition, another concept, idea, non-concrete noun.
So we are working in the area of KNOW when we talk of the idea, 2+2-4.
Most of us are smart enough to know what 2 means. What addition means.
Therefore we can know that 2+2+4. Now that might be a precept for
something more....
ToaSt
On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 03:35:25 -0500, tOrchie <tor...@flash.net> wrote:
>> just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
>> and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
Doubt everything, my friend, soon enough you'll find many things you
thought were right- wrong.
Maybe we're just tripping this whole damn life, and our fucked up
logic makes us blieve that 1+1=2 ?!
You never doubted your HUMAN logic, it appears.
I advise you to start.
>We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
><which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
My logic agrees. but something inside me tells me it's too naive to
take it for granted, a hypnotiser for example can make you blieve that
xx + xx = xxxxx. you WILL blieve it also. ask people who's been
hypnotised.
..Reality is a state of mind..
..toAst..
moggin
misha:
>> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
>> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
tOrchie:
>> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
>> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
>> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
Scattered Brother <bro...@cyberspace.org>:
>Torchie, we know that 2 apples +2 apples = 4 forms called apples, but
>in reallity this is not true, because all the apples are dif. sizes.
>So it would actually =3.something or 4.somethig depending on what the
>decided size of the apple "really" was.
tOrchie isn't wrong, exactly -- he's just over-generalizing.
His point apples, I mean, applies to adding asterisks, but it's not
valid when you toss in a wild-card.
-- moggin
Scattered Brother
tOrchie wrote:
>
> misha wrote:
> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>
> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
Torchie, we know that 2 apples +2 apples = 4 forms called apples, but in reallity this
is not true, because all the apples are dif. sizes. So it would actually =3.something
or 4.somethig depending on what the decided size of the apple "really" was.
> -=tOrchie=-
> "Time will be ending;
> Life's a crusade
> for a consciousness rising
> out of desperate state."
Don't tell that to John...He's pretty big on that time frame theory you know...
Scattered Brother
misha
tOrchie <tor...@flash.net> wrote:
>misha wrote:
>> we know absolutely nothing about gods. and i never said that i did. i
>> was simply working with an assumption. something like: let's suppose
>> that there is a GOD. daryl wanted to know if you could have another GOD.
>>
>> just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
>> and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
right. given the assumption:
VVVV
VVV
VV
>We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
><which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
i'm saying that '*' is an assumption.
anything that is not derived from our senses is an abstraction. math
is not entirely an abstraction because it is based , to a certain
degree on the senses. you know that if you put 2 apples together you
get 4 apples.. that's an observation. you can't possibly know,
however, without any observation, that 2+2=4. PURE math, with no
assumptions is infallable. i don't know of any PURE math though :(
mathematics is a code for what we see in reality. who's to say that
this reality is really real? we assume it is, just like we assume that
2+2=4. do you see my point?
Scattered Brother
moggin wrote:
>
> misha:
>
> >> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
> >> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>
>
> >> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
> >> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
>
>
> >Torchie, we know that 2 apples +2 apples = 4 forms called apples, but
> >in reallity this is not true, because all the apples are dif. sizes.
> >So it would actually =3.something or 4.somethig depending on what the
> >decided size of the apple "really" was.
>
> His point apples, I mean, applies to adding asterisks, but it's not
> valid when you toss in a wild-card.
>
> -- moggin
Fine moggin i see your point. But...i know there's another explanation to
this. I just can't think of it right now.
SB
misha
>>WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
>Doubt everything, my friend, soon enough you'll find many things you
>thought were right- wrong.
>Maybe we're just tripping this whole damn life, and our fucked up
>logic makes us blieve that 1+1=2 ?!
>You never doubted your HUMAN logic, it appears.
>I advise you to start.
>>We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
>><which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
>My logic agrees. but something inside me tells me it's too naive to
>take it for granted, a hypnotiser for example can make you blieve that
>xx + xx = xxxxx. you WILL blieve it also. ask people who's been
>hypnotised.
very good point about a hypnotiser.
my father is a hypnotiser. i was hypnotized by him all my life, or at
least i felt so. my mom is hypnotized too, but not as much as me.
this is not to say that i think he is evil, although i felt that way
very intensly when tripping. i realize he is insecure and
narrow-minded, and i feel sorry for him.
one of the things i brought with me after a trip is that your biggest
fears or horrors will haunt you after you exit this 'reality' or life.
that's how 'god' determines if you go to hell or to heaven. you are
your own 'god' and you judge yourself. i used to be skeptical about
heaven and hell before, and all of that religious crap, but not
anymore. i'm no more religious than i ever was, but it all works out
that based on a certain value system to which your society prescribes
(what is right and what is wrong), you judge yourself eventually,
according to your deeds. and then when you die (a trip is like dying,
an ego death), you punish or reward yourself. an atheist will probably
end up in a void, a christian will either 'go' to heaven or hell. it
is very important to ask god to forgive sins, because it's an escape
for yourself.
i took shrooms just for the hell of it a few months ago.
what followed after a few hours of ingestion is too much; one of the
aspects of the trip though was that i realized that i was hypnotized
by my dad from a very early age. my mind somehow completely opened up
and i remembered memories from the time when i was in the cradle. it
was unbelievable for me, and it is still amazing now that i think
about it, that all those memories persist in my mind. i remember
everything. i traveled back and forth in time. it was like being in a
different dimension.
after the trip i feel more like an individual than a puppet. feel like
i have done something that broke me away from some kind of an
unpleasant cycle.
the trip was a really frightening and liberating experience.
Alan Harder
>>>>> " " == misha <ml...@po.cwru.edu> writes:
>> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
>> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
> i'm saying that '*' is an assumption.
> anything that is not derived from our senses is an abstraction. math
> is not entirely an abstraction because it is based , to a certain
> degree on the senses. you know that if you put 2 apples together you
> get 4 apples.. that's an observation. you can't possibly know,
> however, without any observation, that 2+2=4. PURE math, with no
> assumptions is infallable. i don't know of any PURE math though :(
> mathematics is a code for what we see in reality. who's to say that
> this reality is really real? we assume it is, just like we assume that
> 2+2=4. do you see my point?
If I were a god on drugs I might be able to actually follow this line
of reasoning...
-Alan Harder
a...@math.ams.org
I think, therefore you are.
The above commentary, which does not *even* represent the opinion of
the American Mathematical Society, is sold by weight, not by volume.
Some settling of the contents may have occurred during shipping.
ece...@taranaki.ac.nz
> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>
> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
>
Yep true... but do we really know whether blue is blue? Maybe we all see
colours differently (my blue is your orange) but knowing only what we
have been told (yes son that colour is blue) we assume we all see the
same.
misha
a...@math.ams.org (Alan Harder) wrote:
> > i'm saying that '*' is an assumption.
> > anything that is not derived from our senses is an abstraction. math
> > is not entirely an abstraction because it is based , to a certain
> > degree on the senses. you know that if you put 2 apples together with 2 other apples you
> > get 4 apples.. that's an observation. you can't possibly know,
> > however, without any observation, that 2+2=4. PURE math, with no
> > assumptions is infallable. i don't know of any PURE math though :(
> > mathematics is a code for what we see in reality. who's to say that
> > this reality is really real? we assume it is, just like we assume that
> > 2+2=4. do you see my point?
>If I were a god on drugs I might be able to actually follow this line
>of reasoning...
well, try harder
--
"listen, there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!" e.e.cummings
Seeker
I think that science and religion can meet and be used to substantiate
each other.
For example:
If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not created
nor destroyed, so holds up reincarnation (besides personal experience)
Bill Derby
misha
dear richard,
i don't disagree with you that the big bang theory is the fundamental
theory of the universe. all i'm saying is that before the big bang,
there was still something. it might've been the size of an atom, or
even smaller. and a billion years before that, there was still
something.
you are talking about a creation. i think, though, that a creation
involves a purposeful act of some one, some thing, or some things. but
dao just is. it has always been and alway swill be. that's why i said
that to come to grips with our physical reality, we need to define
some boundaries. you can also look at it from a subatomical level.
some years ago, we all thought that an atom was the smallest particle
that can exhist. a bit later, we disected it into protons, neutrons,
and electrons (by the way, no one has ever seen a single electron
yet). but anyway, later, we are subdividing the protons and neutrons
into even smaller particles, quarks... and something makes me believe
that if we split quarks, there will be something else, and something
else... once again, my point here is that for us humans to make sense
of things, we need to categorize, organize, subdivide something that
is all ONE. that's the idea behind zen, dao, buddhism, etc...that
everything is one. the earth, the planets, the sun, the entire
universe is one, it always is and always will be...
>> the beginning or end are simply
>> inventions that we made up to help us make sense of this world...
> I wouldn't go that far. The big bang -- i.e. the beginning of
>Everything -- is not exactly an idea that we are imposing upon the
>cosmos. It's an idea that we are reading in the stars; it seems to be
>one of the fundamental meanings of the universe. Physical reality
>appears to have come about in a primal creative moment -- like a work
>of art, a thing that was brought into being out of nothingness. And
>to me this is an infinitely cooler thought than the Platonic (and I
>think anal-retentive) notion of a fixed universal order without
>beginning or end. If the Tao which <misha> cites is any guide, the
is 'no beginning/no end' a platonic concept?
>world is characterized by flow, by movement, by process.
yes, that's the idea.
> I wish however that the plumbing of my new apartment at least was
>characterized by infinite stability.
oh, unfortunately, there is the uncertainty principle that'll never
make infinite stability a reality... :)
cheers.
JW
Hmmmmmm, here I go again with a another "science" post. The last time
I id this it got me into real trouble, and I got email for days telling
me that Crater Lake is a caldera. ...Yeow!
I don't believe Newton said that *energy* is neither created nor
destroyed but that it is *matter* that is conserved. That makes quite
a difference to your argument since the *matter" of our bodies may be
conserved ala nutrients for soil, food source for crawly things, etc...
it doesn't, however, say diddly squat about our energy, that is, our
souls.
So much for melding science and religion. Although I like your idea
and wouldn't mind seeing more on it.
I hope I didn't much that up *too* badly,
Joe
Mats A Knip
ml...@po.cwru.edu (misha) writes:
> i don't disagree with you that the big bang theory is the fundamental
> theory of the universe. all i'm saying is that before the big bang,
> there was still something. it might've been the size of an atom, or
> even smaller. and a billion years before that, there was still
> something.
You can't really talk about something "before" the big bang since time
as we know it actually begun with the big bang. Time didn't
necessarily "exist" at all before the big bang. Possibly (probably?)
something did - who the hell knows? - but talking about "a billion
years before the big bang" doesn't make any sense. What time? Where?
A thought that has always fascinated me is that all of the universe as
we currently know it (IE everything that "came out" of the big bang)
is nothing but an advanced experiment performed by beings so far ahead
of us in technology that we could call them gods, and that the reason
that everything fits together so well is simply that these "gods"
created a universe that was designed to be stable. A couple of billion
years and the collected energy of a universe may seem like a lot to
us, but for a being living outside the scope of what we call time and
3-space it might well be a trivial thing :-)
We're all rats I tell you, rats!
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mats...@hut.fi http://www.hut.fi/~mknip/
Digital Voodoo
Actually you're both wrong.
Matter can be destroyed.
It becomes energy.
Energy can be destroyed.
It becomes matter.
E=mc^2
Energy and matter are both relative terms.
Neither exist outright.
Ash---------------------------------------"It only hurts if you let it"
JUST SAY NO TO DRUMS!!!---Join the Partnership for a Drum Free Amerika
------------------------------------------------<dvo...@ix.netcom.com>
JW <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<52nt1i$f...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
Kev
>Yep true... but do we really know whether blue is blue? Maybe we all see
>colours differently (my blue is your orange) but knowing only what we
>have been told (yes son that colour is blue) we assume we all see the
>same.
In analogy, if I feel an object that is a certain texture (like
sandpaper) and interprete it as rough, do you think it possible that
someone will feel the same paper and interprete it as smooth?
Kev
**Please excuse the spelling, I learned fonetically**
Valucard International
ece...@taranaki.ac.nz wrote:
: > > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
: > > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
: >
: > WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
: > We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
: > <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
: Yep true... but do we really know whether blue is blue? Maybe we all see
: colours differently (my blue is your orange) but knowing only what we
: have been told (yes son that colour is blue) we assume we all see the
: same.
2+2=4 may be true if + means addition but what if it meant MULTIPLICATION ?!
OOOOps.
Anyways, I always thought the "maybe i see orange when you see green and
we both call it blue" was stupid, and still do,
BUT
what if I see a sort of orange-greenish-haloed blue and you see a sort of
dayglow-metalloid-spectral blue ?
The differences between us do not have to be unsubtle.
But I'm amazed at how many people have seen the same TV shows I did
and remember the same scenes, and for the same reasons...
eVIan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May the best hallucination win.
I want a God who takes responsibility for His mistakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wizard
>In <324F48...@startext.net> Seeker <oakb...@startext.net> writes:
>>
>>I think that science and religion can meet and be used to substantiate
>>each other.
>>
>>For example:
>>
>>If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not created
>>nor destroyed, so holds up reincarnation (besides personal experience)
>>
>>Bill Derby
This assumes, of course, that the soul is either matter or energy or a
combination of both. If, as I would contend, it is neither, your argument
falls apart.
Wizard
JW
In <wizard-3009...@ip142.lax.primenet.com> wiz...@primenet.com
Okay, the soul is neither matter nor energy... is it a fruit or
vegetable? Oh, and I can I get a beverage with that? :)
catherine yronwode
Wizard wrote:
>
> >Seeker <oakb...@startext.net> writes:
> >>
> >>I think that science and religion can meet and be used to
> >>substantiate each other.
> >>
> >>For example:
> >>
> >>If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not
> >>created nor destroyed, so holds up reincarnation (besides personal
> >>experience)
>
> combination of both. If, as I would contend, it is neither, your
> argument falls apart.
Wizard, that was a nice clean thrust to the heart of the matter.
Congratulations.
I am reading this thread in alt.magick.tantra, where is t is a bit of an
off-topic annoyance, actually (and i have trimmed the newsgroups and
hope others will too, so that this conversation will stay where wanted
and not where it is simply spam). The subject of reincarnation has been
broached here too, with one tantrika weighing in with a positive
opinion, another (me) giving a qualified "i dunno," and the rest
preserving judicious silence.
For me the problem is how to reconcile the doctrine of reincarnation
with the philosophy of existentialism.
Any theories out there in virtual-land?
catherine yronwode ---------------------- mailto:yron...@sonic.net
Lucky W Amulet Archive --- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/LuckyW.html
The Sacred Landscape - http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredland.html
Karezza and Tantra ---- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredsex.html
Freemasonry for Women - http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/CoMasonry.html
Fit to Print ----------- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/ftpindex.html
MICHAEL P. ACORD
The truth is that truth does not have a capital "T," but is observer
dependent. You might consider consulting the scientific works of
Heisenberg, or the philosophical/mythological works of Joseph Campbell.
Both said basically the same thing, but from opposite poles.
Charles Stewart
Catherine,
<snip>
> I am reading this thread in alt.magick.tantra, where is t is a bit of an
> off-topic annoyance, actually (and i have trimmed the newsgroups and
> hope others will too, so that this conversation will stay where wanted
> and not where it is simply spam). The subject of reincarnation has been
> broached here too, with one tantrika weighing in with a positive
> opinion, another (me) giving a qualified "i dunno," and the rest
> preserving judicious silence.
> For me the problem is how to reconcile the doctrine of reincarnation
> with the philosophy of existentialism.
So you are an existentialist! What kind?
> Any theories out there in virtual-land?
My immediate reaction is that they are incompatible: I would interpret
existentialism as a rejection of an attempt to impose metaphysical
notions upon our sense of being. The doctrine of reincarnation imposes
an account of our essence, the existentialist insists that there is no
`self' beyond what we experience/our actions. (I'm not sure that I'm
not doing an injustice to the concept of existentialism in this
account, though).
There are widely differing schools of existentialism however: Sartre's
is the most widely known. My understanding of his account is that he
is trying to recover Kant's `Categorical Imperative' within an
anti-idealist framework. (The Categorical Imperative is the idea that
we can discover if a considered choice is `right' in a given
circumstance is by asking ourselves whether we consider that the
choice would stand up as a universal moral guide).
This idea seems fully compatible with many intuitions about
reincarnation. Perhaps you are less attached to existentialism than to
some of its consequences?
Charles
Starboy
The big bang theory is based on the red shift that has been observed to
be a sort of echo from the big bang.....i.e. allowing them to measure
when it took place etc.....
But in fact the red shift could be explained (and this theory makes more
sense to me) by a different universal body moving toward us and losing
energy at the same time (which makes sense, movement requires energy)...
In other words if this second theory is true, then the universe basically
has always been. ALWAYS...for eternity......and, it's a hell of a lot
larger then we ever thought....(INFINATE) ..which also makes sense to me.
I'm sorry but I don't know where you can find more info on this....look
around a bit.
Starboy
On 30 Sep 1996, Digital Voodoo wrote:
Look you bafoon, if it was DESTROYED, it would be gone! FOREVER. You say
it BECOMES energy! That means that it is CONVERTED, not DESTROYED.
Gee whizzicals!!
Starboy
-sigh
>
Actually you're both wrong. > Matter can be destroyed.
> It becomes energy.
> Energy can be destroyed.
> It becomes matter.
> E=mc^2
> Energy and matter are both relative terms.
> Neither exist outright.
>
>
> Ash---------------------------------------"It only hurts if you let it"
> JUST SAY NO TO DRUMS!!!---Join the Partnership for a Drum Free Amerika
> ------------------------------------------------<dvo...@ix.netcom.com>
>
> JW <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <52nt1i$f...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
> > >
> > >I think that science and religion can meet and be used to substantiate
> > >each other.
> > >
> > >For example:
> > >
> > >If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not created
> > >nor destroyed, so holds up reincarnation (besides personal experience)
> > >
Jason A Wortham
contains energy, but does not USE energy. Only change in movement uses
energy.
As to the big bang theory... When I approached my physics professor
about the big bang theory, she stood rather firmly behind it. I asked,
what kind of barrier would the universe be contained in, if, as the big
bang suggests, the universe is finite? She said their would be no
actual barrier. So, then, "What about whatever's in the rest of the
infinite space?"
Basically the answer boils down to "maybe there are other universes (not
some parallel crap)" Maybe the infinite space accomodates infinite
universes, and somehow a universe is not representative of "everything",
contradicting it's name, uni- one, verse- meaning something.
Digital Voodoo
Yes, but.
The Law says that neither matter nor energy has been, may be, or shall be
either Created or Destroyed.
If it was never created then it doesn't exist.
That, I guess, was my whole point.
Ash---------------------------------------"It only hurts if you let it"
JUST SAY NO TO DRUMS!!!---Join the Partnership for a Drum Free Amerika
------------------------------------------------<dvo...@ix.netcom.com>
Starboy <redl...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU> wrote in article
<Pine.PMDF.3.91.961002...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU>...
Digital Voodoo
I have done some research in both areas.
From what I've found there is no difference between buddhism and
existentialism.
The fundamental idea behind both is that there Is Nothing.
No meanings, no right, no wrong, no purposes, no reasons, no gods, no men.
Nothing.
Buddha said it.
Nietzsche said it.
Sartre said it.
Einstein said it.
The idea of reincarnation, like everything in tantra is symbolic.
We all have our little deaths here and there.
Every time something goes terribly wrong.
Every time something is SO right.
Every time it means too much.
And especially every time when you don't know what it means.
Surprise, you're dead.
Reincarnation has to do with how you recover from these situations.
Do you learn or do you repress?
Do you judge it or do you appreciate it?
Has nothing to do with what happens when your heart stops beating.
When that happens you are reborn in the highest of forms:
The daisy.
Ash---------------------------------------"It only hurts if you let it"
JUST SAY NO TO DRUMS!!!---Join the Partnership for a Drum Free Amerika
------------------------------------------------<dvo...@ix.netcom.com>
Charles Stewart <worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote in article
<52u1d5$e...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
Marty G. Price
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Jason A Wortham wrote:
> As to the big bang theory... When I approached my physics professor
> about the big bang theory, she stood rather firmly behind it. I asked,
> what kind of barrier would the universe be contained in, if, as the big
> bang suggests, the universe is finite? She said their would be no
> actual barrier. So, then, "What about whatever's in the rest of the
> infinite space?"
>
If you were on the surface of a round ball, you could walk
forever on it and never reach a boundary. Imagine you have done so. You
have mapped every inch. Now, are you going to say, "What about whatever
else is on the rest of this infinte surface?"?
If your answer is yes, please return your transcript to your register's
office and request that they change your grade in physics to the "F" you
deserve.
If your answer is no, please apply that answer to your above question.
There are dozens of books offering popular-geared explanations of the big
bang and other (various) theories of the universe. I strongly suggest you
examine a few of them --- the folks who wrote them knew what they were
talking about, and have more background in the field than one physics
class. One I'll suggest as a good starting point is Timothy Ferris's _The
Red Limit_.
Blessed Be,
Gale
misha
Starboy <redl...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU> wrote:
>The big bang theory is based on the red shift that has been observed to
>be a sort of echo from the big bang.....i.e. allowing them to measure
>when it took place etc.....
>But in fact the red shift could be explained (and this theory makes more
>sense to me) by a different universal body moving toward us and losing
>energy at the same time (which makes sense, movement requires energy)...
>In other words if this second theory is true, then the universe basically
>has always been. ALWAYS...for eternity......and, it's a hell of a lot
>larger then we ever thought....(INFINATE) ..which also makes sense to me.
>I'm sorry but I don't know where you can find more info on this....look
>around a bit.
is there basis for this theory?
i've never heard of this theory before
Jason A Wortham
Marty G. Price wrote:
> If you were on the surface of a round ball, you could walk
> forever on it and never reach a boundary. Imagine you have done so. You
> have mapped every inch. Now, are you going to say, "What about whatever
> else is on the rest of this infinte surface?"?
Ok, the idea that somehow the 3d Universe is warped into a 4d sphere or
cyllindar or the fourth demensional equivalant of a sphere, then the
universe would be finite, yet cyclic and looping.
But if we are willing to accept a fourth demension of motion within
which we cannot move freely, but we are forced into a curved motion,
then why can't we percieve that maybe there is free motion outside that
fourth demensional space, and outside that four demensional space, there
may be infinite matter and infinite mass. Again, there has to be some
kind of barrier to force everything to be finite, and I cannot accept
that there is a barrier, or an "end" to it all.
So, while this is a plausable, and possible infalable theory, there are
other infallable theories such as that maybe there are several
"universes" in the same three demensional space, and maybe these
universes are all experiencing occasional big bangs at very high
distances from each other.
> If your answer is yes, please return your transcript to your register's
> office and request that they change your grade in physics to the "F" you
> deserve.
>
> If your answer is no, please apply that answer to your above question.
>
> There are dozens of books offering popular-geared explanations of the big
> bang and other (various) theories of the universe. I strongly suggest you
> examine a few of them --- the folks who wrote them knew what they were
> talking about, and have more background in the field than one physics
> class. One I'll suggest as a good starting point is Timothy Ferris's _The
You have no reason to belive that all of my attention is focused on one
physics class.
spooky
Seeker (oakb...@startext.net) wrote:
: I think that science and religion can meet and be used to substantiate
: each other.
:
: For example:
:
: If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not created
: nor destroyed, so holds up reincarnation (besides personal experience)
:
: Bill Derby
Good thesis... unfortunately scientists arbitrarily say that certain
scientific laws only work in the physical realm to get away from having
to admit to such ideas...
David
spooky
Digital Voodoo (dvo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I have done some research in both areas.
: From what I've found there is no difference between buddhism and
: existentialism.
: The fundamental idea behind both is that there Is Nothing.
: No meanings, no right, no wrong, no purposes, no reasons, no gods, no men.
: Nothing.
: Buddha said it.
: Nietzsche said it.
: Sartre said it.
: Einstein said it.
Great, so there is nothing there. Does that mean I am not free to imagine
there is something there?
David
: The idea of reincarnation, like everything in tantra is symbolic.
: >
: >
Digital Voodoo
spooky <gcli...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote in article
<531qgd$h...@hermes.louisville.edu>...
> Great, so there is nothing there. Does that mean I am not free to
imagine
> there is something there?
>
> David
No, just realize that it IS all in your imagination.
Jason A Wortham
Ok, if we want to take this a bit further...
I have ideas. They are kinda like energy... Are they created and
destroyed?
Some of my ideas are on floppy disks. Floppy disks contain an energy of
sorts(by this bizarre new definition of energy). Can floppy disks be
created and destroyed?
What about memories? Can't a sould be encaptured in a mere memory? Can
a memory be created and destroyed?
Energy is not created or destroyed, matter is not created or destroyed,
but systems are. 2nd law of thermodynamics: From order to chaos.
Always. Dust to dust.
My personal interpretation of the second law of thermo is: Things must
be broken. Have I just broken your argument?
catherine yronwode
Charles Stewart wrote:
>
> Catherine wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > For me the problem is how to reconcile the doctrine of reincarnation
> > with the philosophy of existentialism.
>
> existentialism as a rejection of an attempt to impose metaphysical
> notions upon our sense of being. The doctrine of reincarnation imposes
> an account of our essence, the existentialist insists that there is no
> `self' beyond what we experience/our actions. (I'm not sure that I'm
> not doing an injustice to the concept of existentialism in this
> account, though).
>
> There are widely differing schools of existentialism however: Sartre's
> is the most widely known. My understanding of his account is that he
> is trying to recover Kant's `Categorical Imperative' within an
> anti-idealist framework. (The Categorical Imperative is the idea that
> we can discover if a considered choice is `right' in a given
> circumstance is by asking ourselves whether we consider that the
> choice would stand up as a universal moral guide).
>
> This idea seems fully compatible with many intuitions about
> reincarnation. Perhaps you are less attached to existentialism than to
> some of its consequences?
>
> Charles
At the risk of boring the folk in alt.magick.tantra, where i recently
posted this, here is my take on existentialism, with a brief excursion
into why i think existentialism can incorporate a form of theism (and
hence can accommodate tantra puja, in which the beloved is seen as an
embodiment of deity).
----REPOST---
Most religions or metaphysical systems share the common
belief that there are disembodied "essential qualities" such as "good,"
"evil," "truth," etc., which can exist without physical manifestation.
Furthermore, these essences, when attributed to a god or gods, are
usually believed to have existed before the creation or existence of our
universe. Thus, in Christian thought, long before Jehovah made the
universe, He was good. His essence (goodness) predates existence (the
universe). Belief in an essence that precedes existence is called by
philosophers essentialism. Plato was the first philosopher to really
investigate essentialism, so it is sometimes called Platonism. Modern
followers of essentialism are sometimes called neo-Platonists.
Existentialism is the logical counter-philosophy to essentialism. It
theorizes that all qualities develop after existence begins. Thus,
existentialists postulate that the universe came into being without any
essential qualities -- it just IS. Existentialists believe that all
essential qualities such as "good," "evil," "truth," and the like are
labels that have been defined by people, and that these labels can only
be attached to already-existing things. The first philosopher to deeply
investigate existentialism was Jean-Paul Sartre.
Virtually all religions, despite their differing details, are forms of
essentialism, although most practitioners of these religions are unaware
of the fact. Because existentialism entertains neither the notion of a
creator-God who predates the universe, nor of gods who "embody"
essential qualities (e.g. a Love-Goddess) and atheists do not believe in
god(s) at all, existentialism is sometimes called an atheistic system of
belief -- but this is not necessarily true.
First, not all atheists are existentialists -- one can be an atheistic
essentialist if one believes, for instance, that there is no God, but
that "some children are just born evil." (A true existentialist would
not believe that an essence -- "evil" -- can predate the specific
existences -- children -- to which it has been attributed, and would
instead say, "Some children, whether through genetic or environmental
conditions, develop antisocial, destructive behaviour.")
Second, one can be a god-believing (non-atheist) existentialist if one
theorizes that living, existing beings can develop god-hood, however
that is defined.
The way to remember the difference between these two major systems of
thought is this: In essentialism, essence predates existence; in
existentialism, existence predates essence.
That's all there is to it!
---END REPOST---
misha
joe,
i don't think that soul and energy is one and the same. neither do i
think that the same physical properties apply to a soul as to other
matter/energy. matter and energy are interchangable through einstein's
e=mc^2 formula. i don't know if a soul can be placed in the same place
with either one...
j...@ix.netcom.com(JW) wrote:
>Hmmmmmm, here I go again with a another "science" post. The last time
>I id this it got me into real trouble, and I got email for days telling
>me that Crater Lake is a caldera. ...Yeow!
>I don't believe Newton said that *energy* is neither created nor
>destroyed but that it is *matter* that is conserved. That makes quite
>a difference to your argument since the *matter" of our bodies may be
>conserved ala nutrients for soil, food source for crawly things, etc...
>it doesn't, however, say diddly squat about our energy, that is, our
>souls.
>So much for melding science and religion. Although I like your idea
>and wouldn't mind seeing more on it.
>I hope I didn't much that up *too* badly,
>Joe
--
misha
Mats A Knip <mk...@lk-hp-7.hut.fi> wrote:
>A thought that has always fascinated me is that all of the universe as
>we currently know it (IE everything that "came out" of the big bang)
>is nothing but an advanced experiment performed by beings so far ahead
>of us in technology that we could call them gods, and that the reason
>that everything fits together so well is simply that these "gods"
>created a universe that was designed to be stable. A couple of billion
>years and the collected energy of a universe may seem like a lot to
>us, but for a being living outside the scope of what we call time and
>3-space it might well be a trivial thing :-)
>We're all rats I tell you, rats!
>:-)
a great thought! :) but why would these beings want to do something
like this? if they did it, they must've had a great purpose...
Mats A Knip
> I wrote:
> >A thought that has always fascinated me is that all of the universe as
> >we currently know it (IE everything that "came out" of the big bang)
> >is nothing but an advanced experiment performed by beings so far ahead
> >of us in technology that we could call them gods...........
ml...@po.cwru.edu (misha) writes:
> a great thought! :) but why would these beings want to do something
> like this? if they did it, they must've had a great purpose...
For amusement?
As an experiment?
Or why not simply : because it was possible?
I don't see why they must have a purpose at all. They might have done
it just to see how it will turn out. I mean, if you have powers and
abilities that are unlimited then what the hell are you supposed to do
with your existance? I think creating a singularity just for the heck
of it sounds like a fun thing to do :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mats...@hut.fi http://www.hut.fi/~mknip/
Phillip & Leigh Hurley
> >
> > >Seeker <oakb...@startext.net> writes:
> > >>
> > >>I think that science and religion can meet and be used to
> > >>substantiate each other.
> > >>
> > >>For example:
> > >>
> > >>If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not
> > >>created nor destroyed, so holds up reincarnation (besides personal
First of all, science is a religion by its own definition. Science is the
belief that only that which can be scientifically verified as true is true.
However, it is not possible to scientifically verify the truth of this
assumption, which throws science into the category of belief, or religion.
So what would be the point in having one substantiate the other?
(then catherine wrote:)
> I am reading this thread in alt.magick.tantra, where is t is a bit of an
> off-topic annoyance, actually (and i have trimmed the newsgroups and
> hope others will too, so that this conversation will stay where wanted
> and not where it is simply spam).
I'm reading it from alt.magick.tantra, also, but don't find it annoying.
Tantra is a philosophical system from my perspective. (and thanks for the
trimming)
>The subject of reincarnation has been
> broached here too, with one tantrika weighing in with a positive
> opinion, another (me) giving a qualified "i dunno," and the rest
> preserving judicious silence.
>
> For me the problem is how to reconcile the doctrine of reincarnation
> with the philosophy of existentialism.
>
> Any theories out there in virtual-land?
>
Not sure exactly how you define existentialism, but this seems to hark
back to the perennial, classic and unsolvable debate of nirguna Brahma
("god"/the universe without attributes - nothing) vs. saguna Brahma("god"/the
universe with attributes - everything). Personally, I look at it either way:
nothing = infinity = infinite possibility = everything manifest and unmanifest.
If from an existentialist perspective, we are only what we experience, or only
what we can experience is real, I suppose it depends upon how you define the
limits of consciousness because the limits of consciousness would define the
limits of experience. If experience can only be physical plane experience, then
existentialism can't accommodate reincarnation. If bardo (astral) and other
inner plane experiences (i.e. altered states of consciousness in the meditative
state) are considered real (and they certainly are to me) then reincarnation
can be reconciled with an existentialist perspective.
As to my own perspective on reincarnation, I suspect that it is the case,
so you can tally me with a probably...
Make Love - Leigh
Mats A Knip
Jason A Wortham <tutw...@calweb.com> writes:
> I have ideas. They are kinda like energy... Are they created and
> destroyed?
You can not just assume that "ideas are like energy". They aren't.
> Some of my ideas are on floppy disks. Floppy disks contain an energy of
> sorts(by this bizarre new definition of energy). Can floppy disks be
> created and destroyed?
An "idea on a floppydisk" is just atoms and charges. Of course the disk can
be destroyed. This whole argument is pointless. An "idea" isn't an entity that
lives independently of anthing else. It's an abstraction.
> What about memories? Can't a sould be encaptured in a mere memory? Can
> a memory be created and destroyed?
What is a soul?
You are playing around with terminology that you obviously do not
understand yourself. None of this makes any sense.
> Energy is not created or destroyed, matter is not created or destroyed,
> but systems are. 2nd law of thermodynamics: From order to chaos.
> Always. Dust to dust.
Yes.
> My personal interpretation of the second law of thermo is: Things must
> be broken. Have I just broken your argument?
I think something else is broken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mats...@hut.fi http://www.hut.fi/~mknip/
Marek Wesolowski
misha (ml...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
: Starboy <redl...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU> wrote:
: >The big bang theory is based on the red shift that has been observed to
: >be a sort of echo from the big bang.....i.e. allowing them to measure
: >when it took place etc.....
: >But in fact the red shift could be explained (and this theory makes more
: >sense to me) by a different universal body moving toward us and losing
: >energy at the same time (which makes sense, movement requires energy)...
: >In other words if this second theory is true, then the universe basically
: >has always been. ALWAYS...for eternity......and, it's a hell of a lot
: >larger then we ever thought....(INFINATE) ..which also makes sense to me.
: >I'm sorry but I don't know where you can find more info on this....look
: >around a bit.
: is there basis for this theory?
: i've never heard of this theory before
: --
: "listen, there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!" e.e.cummings
Please, read british astronomer Fred Hoyle theories. Explain red suift and
many other observations and phenomena without refering to big bang
I remember that the central idea is that matter is continuosly shrinking
or something like that, and obviously that means that no expansion *actually* ocurrs
and red shift *is* due to wave length change cause of change in
metrics (references *are* becoming smaller and shorter, etc)
Marek
PD: I recommend Relativity and Cosmology by William Kaufmann III
H. Bondi and Gold support Fred Hoyle, but calculations based on Hubble`s
law, microwave background radiation and the discovery of quasars support
big bang theory.
Knowledge is stuctured in consciousness.- Rig Veda I.164.39
Adam Seeley
misha wrote:
>
> Mats A Knip <mk...@lk-hp-7.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> >A thought that has always fascinated me is that all of the universe as
> >we currently know it (IE everything that "came out" of the big bang)
> >is nothing but an advanced experiment performed by beings so far ahead
> >that everything fits together so well is simply that these "gods"
> >created a universe that was designed to be stable. A couple of billion
> >years and the collected energy of a universe may seem like a lot to
> >us, but for a being living outside the scope of what we call time and
> >3-space it might well be a trivial thing :-)
>
> >We're all rats I tell you, rats!
>
> >:-)
>
> like this? if they did it, they must've had a great purpose...
> "listen, there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!" e.e.cummings
I hate to say it, but (now how does it go?) ... Well, the way
scientists knew they had to create a nuclear bomb was to achieve a
regular explosion in all directions!
.... splitting the atom etc..
.... lot's of something from not a lot of anything!
... ah well it's a thought!
Jason A Wortham
Phillip & Leigh Hurley wrote:
>
> First of all, science is a religion by its own definition. Science is the
> belief that only that which can be scientifically verified as true is true.
> However, it is not possible to scientifically verify the truth of this
> assumption, which throws science into the category of belief, or religion.
> So what would be the point in having one substantiate the other?
>
true. It also says that my last statement is true, and so on...
true = true because we said so. It's merely a definitional thing.
Without thought "true not equal". Things equal themselves. If I say
"Hello", then I said "Hello". You can choose to merely accept this on
faith, but I consider that faith to be the core of thought and
consciousness.
Phillip & Leigh Hurley
Not sure exactly what you mean here - truth value of tautology? The
point is that if science is considered to be the ultimate affirmation of
truth, it becomes a religion by its own definition.
Make Love - Leigh
Cabe
i seem to remember spooky saying--
>
>Seeker (oakb...@startext.net) wrote:
>: I think that science and religion can meet and be used to substantiate
>: each other.
>:
>: For example:
>:
>: If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not created
>:
>: Bill Derby
>
>Good thesis... unfortunately scientists arbitrarily say that certain
>scientific laws only work in the physical realm to get away from having
>to admit to such ideas...
>
>David
that same law Also says that energy can be translated into another form, as
mechanical energy is translated into electrical energy via hydroelectric dams,
or as mechanical energy is translated into heat energy through friction... so
by this same thesis, given that the 'soul' is an independant 'form' of energy,
it might be possible to degrade it into a simpler form and say, power my house
for a month? <sick!! sick sick sick sick sick!>
and, after being subjected to this hypothetical process, what reamins of the
soul? and in what form?
all of this is assuming that the 'soul' itself is not a source of new energy,
or a centrepital energy accumulator, or has any inwardly driven effect on
outside influences <or is weaker than those influences> of course.
happy thinking,
cabe
e...@gate.net
--
"We went to the New York World's Fair,
saw what the past had been like according
to the Ford Motor Car Company and Walt
Disney, saw what the future would be like
according to general motors."
-Kurtt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse 5
Matthew Maes
misha (ml...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
: Mats A Knip <mk...@lk-hp-7.hut.fi> wrote:
:
: >A thought that has always fascinated me is that all of the universe as
: >we currently know it (IE everything that "came out" of the big bang)
: >is nothing but an advanced experiment performed by beings so far ahead
: >of us in technology that we could call them gods, and that the reason
: >that everything fits together so well is simply that these "gods"
: >created a universe that was designed to be stable. A couple of billion
: >years and the collected energy of a universe may seem like a lot to
: >us, but for a being living outside the scope of what we call time and
: >3-space it might well be a trivial thing :-)
:
: >We're all rats I tell you, rats!
Sounds as though someone has read the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy
series a few too many times...
M. Hough
ml...@po.cwru.edu (misha) wrote:
>joe,
>
> i don't think that soul and energy is one and the same. neither do i
>think that the same physical properties apply to a soul as to other
>matter/energy. matter and energy are interchangable through einstein's
>e=mc^2 formula. i don't know if a soul can be placed in the same place
>with either one...
>
>
>j...@ix.netcom.com(JW) wrote:
>
>>Hmmmmmm, here I go again with a another "science" post. The last time
>>I id this it got me into real trouble, and I got email for days telling
>>me that Crater Lake is a caldera. ...Yeow!
>
>>I don't believe Newton said that *energy* is neither created nor
>>destroyed but that it is *matter* that is conserved. That makes quite
>>a difference to your argument since the *matter" of our bodies may be
>>conserved ala nutrients for soil, food source for crawly things, etc...
>>it doesn't, however, say diddly squat about our energy, that is, our
>>souls.
>
created or destroyed - it can, however change form freely. Hence our bodies
transform stored chemical energy in muscle into kinetic energy when we move.
Matter was thought to be precserved in the same way - an atom is an atom is an
atom.
Now, Einstein changed all that by equating matter and energy - so we have:
"The total mass-energy of a closed system is preserved"
So when the body decomposes after death, some of thematter is digested and
releases it's stored chemical energy, some reains as er.. compost.
If you are countiung souls as "energy patterns" then I suppose they could leave
the body in some way, but science has nothing to say about that at ;ppresent.
o much for melding science and religion. Although I like your idea
>>and wouldn't mind seeing more on it.
>
>>I hope I didn't much that up *too* badly,
nah, not really.
>
>>Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>"listen, there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!" e.e.cummings
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hough Phone: Work: 01925 603658
Molecular Biophysics Group Home (Weekdays) 01928 565842
CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory Home:(Weekends) 0116 2335366
Warrington m...@dl.ac.uk
WA4 4AD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George C. Lindauer
Adam Seeley (ad...@cell.co.uk) wrote:
: misha wrote:
: >
: > Mats A Knip <mk...@lk-hp-7.hut.fi> wrote:
: >
: > >A thought that has always fascinated me is that all of the universe as
: > >we currently know it (IE everything that "came out" of the big bang)
: > >is nothing but an advanced experiment performed by beings so far ahead
: > >of us in technology that we could call them gods, and that the reason
: > >that everything fits together so well is simply that these "gods"
: > >created a universe that was designed to be stable. A couple of billion
: > >years and the collected energy of a universe may seem like a lot to
: > >us, but for a being living outside the scope of what we call time and
: > >3-space it might well be a trivial thing :-)
: >
: > >We're all rats I tell you, rats!
That incidentally is one of my favorite daydreams... that I am a zoo
animal being taken care of be creatures far advanced from me. It's one
of the few possibilities of 'why' that I actually like... of course
neither assertion is provable the way scientists like proof... but on the
other hand if you assume it CAN'T happen you won't postulate a theory
that it can... and if you don't postulate a theory dealing with what
CAN be you can't study it to see how accurate it is. Se la vi...
: >
: > >:-)
: >
: > a great thought! :) but why would these beings want to do something
: > like this? if they did it, they must've had a great purpose...
: > --
: > "listen, there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!" e.e.cummings
:
:
: I hate to say it, but (now how does it go?) ... Well, the way
James Paradise
I agree that soul is something other than universal energy. Soul is
the memory of experience in time/space, and perhaps other
dimensions as well. Memory of experience, equals Soul.
My Thoughts,
Peace, James
--
James Paradise, President
FAMILY EARTH FOUNDATION
Research, Education, Counseling
14 E Main Street #2
PO Box 2017
Walla Walla WA 99362
509-525-1828
email to: ja...@bmi.net
M. Hough <mhh> wrote in article <53ap12$k...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>...
misha
e...@gate.net (Cabe) wrote:
>that same law Also says that energy can be translated into another form, as
>mechanical energy is translated into electrical energy via hydroelectric dams,
>or as mechanical energy is translated into heat energy through friction... so
>by this same thesis, given that the 'soul' is an independant 'form' of energy,
>it might be possible to degrade it into a simpler form and say, power my house
>for a month? <sick!! sick sick sick sick sick!>
you can't look at a soul/mind/whatever in the same way that you look
at matter/energy. translation is a physical transformation from one
form to another. a mind is not that simple. do you understand your
mind?
>and, after being subjected to this hypothetical process, what reamins of the
>soul? and in what form?
you are applying laws that don't really apply at all. you can't just
TAKE a soul and transform it, like you can matter/energy. can you
point at a point in your body where i can find the soul? if not, does
that mean it doesn't exist?
spooky
Jason A Wortham (tutw...@calweb.com) wrote:
: Phillip & Leigh Hurley wrote:
: >
: > First of all, science is a religion by its own definition. Science is the
: > belief that only that which can be scientifically verified as true is true.
: > However, it is not possible to scientifically verify the truth of this
: > assumption, which throws science into the category of belief, or religion.
: > So what would be the point in having one substantiate the other?
You are ignoring the fact that science doesn't accept that true=true unless
a lot of people all agree that true=true by doing verifications. As
opposed to religion, where there are things that just can't be verified by
individuals without taking them for granted. Still, you are correct in
questioning the thesis that a lot of people being able to independently
verify and agree to something does in fact necessarily have something to
say about the question of truth or falsehood. For example they all
agreed the earth was flat once and vehemently denied otherwise...
who is to say they've actually got better notions today?
David
: Cute. Science says that true=true. It also says that this statement is
misha
jason, i think you are confused about an important concept.
you can have a replica of a 'soul' on a floppy disk or in a painting.
the best that it can ever get is to become the mirror image of the
source or soul. but this SOURCE is not actualy on the disk. you can't
put a slice of it in a song or a poem because it is indivisible. you
can describe it beautifully in a song or whatever else media you use
(mixed media works well), but you end up with a copy. to understand
this concept better, try alan watts. he takes eastern ideas that we
aren't familiar with and makes them understandable. he is very good at
this, much better than i :)
try my homepage, i have some links to his seminars:
http://k2.cwru.edu/~mxr55/home.htm
Jason A Wortham <tutw...@calweb.com> wrote:
>Ok, if we want to take this a bit further...
>I have ideas. They are kinda like energy... Are they created and
>destroyed?
>Some of my ideas are on floppy disks. Floppy disks contain an energy of
>sorts(by this bizarre new definition of energy). Can floppy disks be
>created and destroyed?
>What about memories? Can't a sould be encaptured in a mere memory? Can
>a memory be created and destroyed?
>Energy is not created or destroyed, matter is not created or destroyed,
>but systems are. 2nd law of thermodynamics: From order to chaos.
>Always. Dust to dust.
>My personal interpretation of the second law of thermo is: Things must
>be broken. Have I just broken your argument?
--
A. Channing
--
"Everything you can imagine exists........
What confuses me about the big bang is how do we
know that was the beginning? If I understand
correctly (and I probably don't not coming from
a physics background) before the big bang 99%
of all matter was compacted into the same spot,
and then exploded, and eventually it will all
compact back into the centre again. What therefore
is there to stop it all exploding once again in yet
another big bang?
And if physicists think that is what will happen,
how do we know that the universe hasn't expanded
and compacted itself an infinite number of times
already?
Ant, A Wayward Son of Mother Earth
http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~u9219722/antshome.html
.......even if it only exists in your imagination"
catherine yronwode
The ongoing discussion of souls. matter, enegery, and the like prompts
this, which is specifially meant in regard to alt.magick.tantra (one of
several ngs where this cross-posted thread appears) and the concept of
"soulmatedness":
Can soul-matedness be considered as as an existential rather than an
essential condition?
To jump right in: All religions and all philosophies are basically
essentialist in nature. They postulate that essences, abstract qualities
or discarnate entities (e.g. god, love, courage, evil, truth, beauty,
souls, angels) precede existence — that is, that these things have
existed since "before time" or "before the creation of the earth" or
"before the evolution of humanity" or whatever starting point one
chooses.
Numerous ideal entities and forms that precede existence were described
by Plato, giving rise to the term "Platonic idealism" to describe a
belief in such things, but the term not only covers "ideals," it also
covers qualities or states of being, so a better term for it is
"essentialism."
Plato was the one who first theorized that a dyadic male-female soul was
broken apart before birth to create two beings who thereafter sought
each other out as "soul-mates" in an effort to reunite. His descriptions
of such dyadic reunions gave rise to the term "Platonic friendship" to
describe a soul-matedness that includes a profound metaphysical
"recognition" but may or may not include sexual union.
Platonic idealism was revived during the Renaissance as "neo-Platonism,"
and formed the basis for much philosophical thought during the
neo-classical period. Call it Platonism or neo-Platonism, though, all of
it is essentialism, the belief in essential qualities that precede
existence.
Okay, so in the 20th century along came Jean-Paul Sartre and postulated
the antithesis to essentialism, which he called existentialism. His
premise was that all ideals, spiritual entities, and essences only come
into being after existence comes into being, that existence precedes
essence. There is no "courage," he said, until someone acts
courageously. There is no "perfect sunset" until someone defines it as
such. There is no "soul" until a person is born — and thus there are no
"soul-mates" until two people agree that they share the qualities they
have defined as "soul" and as "mating."
As Sartre further explained, there is no "objective" truth," either
— there are only "inter-subjective" truths — subjective (personal)
truths agreed upon by two or more people. When many, many, many people
subjectively agree on the same "truth" (such as "killing little children
is bad" or "god loves us" or "sex is dirty" or "sex is holy"), it seems
to become an "objective truth," but it is inter-subjective nonetheless.
Sartre didn't talk much about soul-mates, but he did talk about heroes.
He explained heroism in terms of inter-subjectivity by saying that a
hero is a person who acts in the way that he and the observer or
observing group define as heroic. If he ceases to act as a hero would,
he is no longer a hero. Yet he can become a hero again by once more
acting in a manner that is inter-subjectively defined as heroic.
It is not a wild assumption, therefore, to assert that Sartre would have
said, were he to have been asked, that soul-mates are people who act in
the way they mutually define as soul-mated. If they cease to act as they
think soul-mates would, they are no longer soul-mates. Yet they can
become soul-mates again by once more acting in the manner they mutually
define as soul-mated.
In other words, if both parties agree that soul-mates long for each
other's company when apart, and one ceases to long for the other, they
cease to be soul-mates. If both are sure that soul-matedness lasts a
lifetime and cannot be undone, then the bond cannot be undone — for them
— until death. If both believe that soul-mates always meet upon the
highest level of compassion possible to them, then that is how they will
meet.
Existentially speaking, soul-matedness is an inter-subjective state
agreed upon by two people who remain soul-mates as long as they both
retain the same inter-subjective definition of soul-matedness and as
long as each believes that he or she and his or her soul-mate are acting
in accord with whatever precepts have been mutually agreed upon as
conditions requisite to soul-matedness.
catherine yronwode ----------------------- mailto:yron...@sonic.net
Lucky W Amulet Archive ---- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/LuckyW.html
for talk on folkloric magic charms, ask your ISP for news:alt.lucky.w
The Sacred Landscape -- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredland.html
and "subscribe space <youraddress>" to mailtto:list...@intuition.org.
Charles Stewart
Apologies for engaging in a rather pedantic post, correcting
technicalities. I do have a couple of substantial points to make
though.
catherine yronwode <yron...@sonic.net> wrote:
> At the risk of boring the folk in alt.magick.tantra, where i recently
> posted this, here is my take on existentialism, with a brief excursion
> into why i think existentialism can incorporate a form of theism (and
> hence can accommodate tantra puja, in which the beloved is seen as an
> embodiment of deity).
>
> ----REPOST---
>
> Most religions or metaphysical systems share the common
> belief that there are disembodied "essential qualities" such as "good,"
> "evil," "truth," etc., which can exist without physical manifestation.
> Furthermore, these essences, when attributed to a god or gods, are
> usually believed to have existed before the creation or existence of our
> universe. Thus, in Christian thought, long before Jehovah made the
> universe, He was good. His essence (goodness) predates existence (the
> universe). Belief in an essence that precedes existence is called by
> philosophers essentialism. Plato was the first philosopher to really
> investigate essentialism, so it is sometimes called Platonism. Modern
> followers of essentialism are sometimes called neo-Platonists.
Plato is rather a hard philosopher to pin down, as unlike Aristotle
and almost all later philosophers he never laid down a statement of
his position but instead was interested in questions. He did make
explicit his `Platonist' theory of forms, but this did not underpin
his approach in the asme way as most later philospophers metaphysics
do. He also laid out an objection to it that he never refuted: his
infinite regress argument (roughly, that for an abstract ideal world
of form to act upon this world, there must be a mediating entity that
realises the forms influence. This entity cannot be of this world, so
it too needs a mediating entity too, and so on).
The essentialism of the theory of forms is perhaps weaker than it
might first appear, since it is of much the same nature as the
assertion of a scientific law. `Goodness' does not exist in this world
except in so far as it is realised in actions that we judge to be
good. One might make a similar claim about the abstract notion of a
collection of things.
> Existentialism is the logical counter-philosophy to essentialism. It
> theorizes that all qualities develop after existence begins. Thus,
> existentialists postulate that the universe came into being without any
> essential qualities -- it just IS. Existentialists believe that all
> essential qualities such as "good," "evil," "truth," and the like are
> labels that have been defined by people, and that these labels can only
> be attached to already-existing things. The first philosopher to deeply
> investigate existentialism was Jean-Paul Sartre.
<snip>
Anti-essentialism is an old thread in philosphy. It dates back to the
Cynics and Sophists in Greece. Some later philosophers such as Hobbes and
Hume took a relaxed view either regarding essentials as things we
cannot have direct knowledge of (solipsism) or just not caring.
Naturalism (or materialism), the dominant post-Hegelian philosphy
argues that there is one substance existing in the universe, that of
the physical existing things. A moderate form of essentialism can be
recovered: we can argue that such things as goodness are ultimately
composed of this one substance, but in reasoning about them we cannot
reduce these `higher' concepts to reasoning about the underlying
substance. Thus a modification of Plato's theory of forms is
compatible with naturalism: forms are the `higher nature' of the base
matter, realised through its complex behaviour.
Kierkegaard, Heidegger and (sometimes) Nietzsche are considered to be
the first existentialists. Kierkegaard was the first, a Christian
existentialist, who invented the notion of `existential dread'. The
term `existentialismus' (Ger. for existentialist) is due to Heidegger,
but Heidegger by the time of Sartre distanced himself from
existentialism. Sartre, though, was the man who put existentialism `on
the map' so to speak.
The defining characteristic of the various brands of existentialism is
not its anti-essentialism (Kierkegaard's is not, for instance), but
its concentration on the centrality of free will in ethics and the
impossiblity of a moral code to direct our behaviour.
It seems to me that it is not much of an objection to most accounts of
human existence that we claim that its central concepts (eg. goodness)
are not of the sort of things that exist, since it is possible to
rework most such accounts so that it is explained in terms of
`irreducible higher order phenomenon' (your reworking of theism is
just such an example). The fundamental difficulty is asserting the
legitimacy of our account, and to me the major divide in philosophy is
between those who believe that such legitimation is ultimately
achievable (modernism) and those who believe that it is not
(postmodernism and relativism).
Charles
Jeff Marshall
Hi Cat,
I'm facilitating a study session in CompuServe's New Age B forum on the
Abyss and this subject came up as I linked the Abyss and sex through the
Graal and Da'ath. Thanks for your thoughts here.
As far as Plato being the first to come up this idea, I'm not sure.
Once can read Genesis to imply that Man was created as a hermaphrodite
and then broken into man and women. At least that is the way I read it.
We can also the trace the concept of a hermaphrodite diety through many
ancient writings that I think pre-date Plato.
Darkwind
Just a quick note to ask that everyone who can take a moment
out to call or fax the Resources Agency of the California
Board of Forestry and let them know that you do NOT support
the massive destruction happening in Headwaters and other
old-growth forests. Having just called the numbers in a
previous post, I now have more up-to-date information on
how and whom to contact.
All it takes it two quick things:
(1) Call Douglas Wheeler's office at (916) 653-5656 and POLITELY
inform the secretary there of your name and your request for
no more "salvage" logging at Headwaters. She will write down
your name and note that you desire it to stop. Do not bother
her or anyone at this office over the phone more than that;
they have a LOT going on with this stuff and cannot respond
in person to every call.
(2) Send a fax with a detailed, polite, conservatively-worded
message explaining your dislike of the logging. It would
probably help if you took a conversational "request" mood
in your writing rather than a brusque "demand" mood. It
should be alright to express how deeply you feel, but
realize that Douglas Wheeler (and everyone else in his
office) is NOT your enemy, so DON'T rail at him or get
antagonistic. Save that for PAC Lumber.
You can also send a fax to Pete Wilson's office at (916) 445-4633
and ask him to urge the Board of Forestry to end the destruction.
I'm sorry to intrude with this over so many newsgroups, but if
the effort gets just a few people to call in it could make all
the difference for these few remaining old-growth forests.
Thanks for your efforts.
Light and Laughter,
Darkwind
BuddhaMind
> For me the problem is how to reconcile the doctrine of reincarnation
> with the philosophy of existentialism.
>
No problem. Smile at your neighbor today instead : )
Let them feel your warmth and all will be revelaed, I promise.
--
BuddhaMind
Digital Voodoo
This idea of a hermaphroditic deity is the fundamental principle in most
all mythologies.
Of course, the term hermaphroditic is only an aproximation. In fact this
god principle
is neither man nor woman. In the realm of the gods, there is no difference
between
the two. This is because there simply are no differences. No matter how
people have
misinterpreted the ideas since, all mythologies start with this idea: God
knows no opposites.
There is no now, no later, no here, no there, no me, no you, no him, no
her.
There is no difference between Death and Life, nor between Right and Wrong,
nor between Being and Nothingness.
This undiferentiated god force is always considered to be around before the
Begining.
In Genesis, and in most other "Beginning Myths", the creative principle
causes a world
to come into being, and he creates man upon it. He Always says something
like "It is good."
This is the Affirmation. The recognition of the creator seeing his
creation and knowing
that it is the same as himself. In the Garden, Adam and Eve do not know
that they
are different from one another, or from the animals around them, or from
the Garden itself,
or from the god who made it.
The begining of the "History Myth" comes after Adam and Eve eat the apple
from the tree
of knowledge of Good and Evil. Again, this story is told around the world,
though the names
are different. This is the Recognition of Difference, and causes them to
be automatically
expelled from the Garden. You see, they start to see that they are
different from one
another. They are ashamed and cover themselves. They begin to see the
pairs of opposites
which can only exist in the sphere of time, and never in the realm of the
gods, so they are
exiled.
Of course, thanks to Plato and the other "Great Greek Thinkers" and the way
that their
mind games have been misinterpreted over the ages, we have all forgotten
how to interpret these
stories. We have been taught for centuries that these stories are literal
accounts of the
history of the world instead of mythologic stories older than Mesapotamia.
These stories go
back to the first homonid campfire, possibly further, but they are all
symbolic. They point toward
something which cannot be expressed in words. If it could be expressed in
words, then we
wouldn't need these symbolic stories in the first place. We can translate
these things all we want,
but the only way to understand is without language.
Ash---------------------------------------"It only hurts if you let it"
JUST SAY NO TO DRUMS!!!---Join the Partnership for a Drum Free Amerika
------------------------------------------------<dvo...@ix.netcom.com>
Jeff Marshall <je...@infocomm.net> wrote in article
<325D05...@infocomm.net>...
kenn...@worldnet.att.net
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:19:03 -0400, Jeff Marshall <je...@infocomm.net> wrote:
> Hi Cat,
>
> I'm facilitating a study session in CompuServe's New Age B forum on the
> Abyss and this subject came up as I linked the Abyss and sex through the
> Graal and Da'ath. Thanks for your thoughts here.
>
> As far as Plato being the first to come up this idea, I'm not sure.
> Once can read Genesis to imply that Man was created as a hermaphrodite
> and then broken into man and women. At least that is the way I read it.
>
> We can also the trace the concept of a hermaphrodite diety through many
> ancient writings that I think pre-date Plato.
>
> AOI
> Jeff
> http://www.infocomm.net/~jeff/magan/magan.html
The male's penis is connected to his penile gland; the female's clitoris
is connected to her vagina. This I discovered with a Mistress, teaching
me S/m. Some ladies have clitoris' that enlarge to 5 inches long when she
is erect.
Don't believe me but have you noticed some freak shows and magazines?
slave ken
--
Posted using Reference.COM. http://www.reference.com
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
BigEd
ece...@taranaki.ac.nz wrote:
>> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
>> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>>
>> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
>> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
>> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
>>
>
>Yep true... but do we really know whether blue is blue? Maybe we all see
>colours differently (my blue is your orange) but knowing only what we
>have been told (yes son that colour is blue) we assume we all see the
>same.
You've got a point, but I'd answer with a question: Does it
really matter? As long as we all know to stop at a "red" traffic
light and go on the "green", we can safely interact.
I've heard this termed "consensus reality".
----------------------------------------
Buddy Rich: World's Greatest Drummer, Ever: Bar None.
http://www.clark.net/pub/biged/buddy/
----------------------------------------
George C. Lindauer
BigEd (bi...@clark.net) wrote:
: ece...@taranaki.ac.nz wrote:
:
: >> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
: >> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
: >>
: >> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
: >> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
: >> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
: >>
: >
: >Yep true... but do we really know whether blue is blue? Maybe we all see
: >colours differently (my blue is your orange) but knowing only what we
: >have been told (yes son that colour is blue) we assume we all see the
: >same.
:
: You've got a point, but I'd answer with a question: Does it
: really matter? As long as we all know to stop at a "red" traffic
: light and go on the "green", we can safely interact.
But... what if different wavelengths of color affect the brain in different
ways? IF that were true then you seeing blue while I see orange means
our brains are going to react differently and that means there is an
inherent difference between us that will possibly cause us to react to
events differently. Now it is true that we can come to a consensus about
when to stop and go... but if what I've said has any truth then we
would act differently WITHOUT consensus than we act WITH consensus.
Yet we study not what happens when we act without consensus. So what is
our basis for assuming that the way things are is the way things should be?
Blind faith that we couldn't be wrong?
David
:
: I've heard this termed "consensus reality".
misha
bi...@clark.net (BigEd) wrote:
> You've got a point, but I'd answer with a question: Does it
>really matter? As long as we all know to stop at a "red" traffic
>light and go on the "green", we can safely interact.
> I've heard this termed "consensus reality".
yep, berkley's theory of reality. basically, there can be infinite
possibilities, but insofar as practical matters are aconcerned, why
not stick with the one that is most practical/pragmatic?
G*rd*n
bi...@clark.net (BigEd) wrote:
| > You've got a point, but I'd answer with a question: Does it
| >really matter? As long as we all know to stop at a "red" traffic
| >light and go on the "green", we can safely interact.
|
| > I've heard this termed "consensus reality".
| yep, berkley's theory of reality. basically, there can be infinite
| possibilities, but insofar as practical matters are aconcerned, why
| not stick with the one that is most practical/pragmatic?
The problem with empirical or social versions of "reality"
is that the concept cannot then be used reliably as a
weapon against the validity of other people's experiences
and beliefs, whereas absolutistic realities can. This
makes the former kind unsatisfactory for many enterprises,
e.g. the more common practices of religion, philosophy,
and politics.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
dmi...@alaska.net
bi...@clark.net (BigEd) wrote:
(huge snip)
> You've got a point, but I'd answer with a question: Does it
>really matter? As long as we all know to stop at a "red" traffic
>light and go on the "green", we can safely interact.
Only if one of us is not colorblind and the lights are always in the
same order everywhere; this is not always the case, alas.
Magda Bathory
> I've heard this termed "consensus reality".
catherine yronwode
kenn...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Hello,
> The male's penis is connected to his penile gland; the female's
> clitoris is connected to her vagina. This I discovered with a
> Mistress, teaching me S/m.
Good thing she wasn't teaching you Human Anatomy. In other words -- she
was wrong.
(A) There is no "penile gland" unless you mean the Glans Penis (the
rounded "cap" at the end of the penis) -- in which case that's no big
revelation, cause it is highly visible to anyone.
(B) The clitoris is not "connected to" the vagina. It is a structure
that is sort of like an upside down v and at the point of the v there is
an extension tat stiocks out a bit (the G;ans Clitoris or visible
protion). The upside-down V parts (the Crurae) run parallel to the outer
lips of the vulva, beneath the surface of the skin, and are not
externally visible. Go look at any book on human anatomy for the real
scoop.
catherine yronwode ----------------------- mailto:yron...@sonic.net
Lucky W Amulet Archive ---- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/LuckyW.html
for talk on folkloric magic charms, ask your ISP for news:alt.lucky.w
The Sacred Landscape -- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredland.html
or "subscribe space <youraddress>" to - mailto:list...@intuition.org.
Astrologer
catherine yronwode <yron...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Wizard wrote:
>>
>> >Seeker <oakb...@startext.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >>I think that science and religion can meet and be used to
>> >>substantiate each other.
>> >>
>> >>For example:
>> >>
>> >>If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then souls are not
>> >>created nor destroyed, so holds up reincarnation (besides personal
>> >>experience)
>>
This deduction requires a third clause in order to follow logically. What you
need to write is:
If energy is neither created nor detroyed nor changes
state, then souls are not created nor destroyed.
Energy is currently believed to change state. If souls are a form of energy it
would be entirely possible for them to alter in state towards a point of
equilibrium, and no longer be souls, nor capable of spontaenously reforming into
souls.
>> This assumes, of course, that the soul is either matter or energy or a
>> combination of both. If, as I would contend, it is neither, your
>> argument falls apart.
I can't think of anything currently observable or measurable that is neither
energy nor matter. You must be obliquely suggesting that a soul is nothing more
than a notion, and has no real existence.
>Wizard, that was a nice clean thrust to the heart of the matter.
>Congratulations.
>
Astrologer
At Calvery, one of the two thieves was saved.
That's a reasonable percentage.
Barry A
ml...@po.cwru.edu (misha) wrote:
>a...@math.ams.org (Alan Harder) wrote:
>> > i'm saying that '*' is an assumption.
>> > anything that is not derived from our senses is an abstraction. math
>> > is not entirely an abstraction because it is based , to a certain
>> > degree on the senses. you know that if you put 2 apples together with 2 other apples you
>> > get 4 apples.. that's an observation. you can't possibly know,
>> > however, without any observation, that 2+2=4. PURE math, with no
>> > assumptions is infallable. i don't know of any PURE math though :(
>> > mathematics is a code for what we see in reality. who's to say that
>> > this reality is really real? we assume it is, just like we assume that
>> > 2+2=4. do you see my point?
>>If I were a god on drugs I might be able to actually follow this line
>>of reasoning...
>well, try harder
>--
>"listen, there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!" e.e.cummings
well.. i can see someone has been reading Descartes, the father of
modern Philosophy.. that's nice.. but try not to claim that like it
came from your great and powerful mind.
Filip Balyu
Astrologer wrote:
> catherine yronwode <yron...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >Wizard wrote:
> >> >Seeker <oakb...@startext.net> writes:
> >> This assumes, of course, that the soul is either matter or energy or a
> >> combination of both. If, as I would contend, it is neither, your
> >> argument falls apart.
> I can't think of anything currently observable or measurable that is neither
> energy nor matter. You must be obliquely suggesting that a soul is nothing more
> than a notion, and has no real existence.
The latter part of the sentence does not follow from the first part.
Just like 'Soul', 'Energy' too is just a notion. Or have you ever
observed 'Energy' with your physical senses (eyes, ears, ...) ?
'Energy' is just a term scientists give to the source of 'Force'
(another non-observable notion). They are both conceived to integrate
observations in an abstract principle. That is they are labels for
the unity felt underneath seemingly unrelated events in our world.
We all are familiar with the term 'personality'. It is used to designate
the unity of actions, thoughts, emotions, ... of a human being. Actions,
emotions, thoughts are never the same in a short period of time. Yet
we are able to recognize the personality behind those actions, emotions,
thoughts. We all know that in a longer period of time even personality
changes. And still we are able to find the link between a series of
personalities. We still recognize him as 'him'. That constant we could
call the 'soul' (indeed just a word). The soul is what remains constant
in someones life, no matter how much his personality changes.
Now, everything I said in the previous two paragraphs, are things not
observable on the physical (objective) plane. Pshychology is about
thoughts and emotions. Neither are (in traditional sense) matter nor energy.
So do emotions and thoughts have no real existence ?
In a more esoteric sense, we can say that everything in the universe is
'Energy'. Physical energy (and matter via E=mc2) is only the most dense
part of 'Energy'. Thoughts and Emotions are more subtle parts of 'Energy'.
So both of them are equally right (or wrong). The soul is something beyond
energy and matter (because it is not physical), but in the broader sense,
the soul is energy.
The problem is: observations beyond the objective (physical level) are
subjective. So you will not find any confirmation of those observations
but within yourself. In time, if the majority of man have developed that
kind of inner observations, it will become objective.
Until then a science which restricts itself to objective observable objects
will miss a great part.
Filip.
Pacificus
newsgroups clipped based on content: rec.drugs.psychedelic,
alt.drugs.psychedelics,
Filip Balyu wrote:
<snip>
> We all are familiar with the term 'personality'. It is used to designate
> the unity of actions, thoughts, emotions, ... of a human being. Actions,
> emotions, thoughts are never the same in a short period of time. Yet
> we are able to recognize the personality behind those actions, emotions,
> thoughts. We all know that in a longer period of time even personality
> changes. And still we are able to find the link between a series of
> personalities. We still recognize him as 'him'. That constant we could call >the 'soul' (indeed just a word). The soul is what remains constant in >someones life, no matter how much his personality changes.
>
What Filip says has merit, but: thoughtful scientists and philosophers do not
like to use terms that have already been given meanings that exceed the
attributes that they intend to bundle into those terms. Whether they see the
attributes by introspection or by a view that is restricted to objective
observable objects makes no never-mind to this preference.
The unchanging thing inside us has been called the 'transcendental ego' by
Koestenbaum in his book _The Vitality of Death_, and by others. This captures,
at least for him, the attribute that you describe. Calling it a soul brings in
some attributes that do not have the same clarity of existence as that
unchanging thing has. For example, the idea that the transcendal ego
transmigrates, reincarnates, or goes to another world for judgement when we
die is not so vividly evident for all people, but this seems to be part of the
common understanding (mis-understanding?) of the word soul.
But if it works for you, that's fine by me. Just wanted to share another
reason for the difficulty that your terminology might cause other souls to
have.
Pacificus
Miklos Power
> You've got a point, but I'd answer with a question: Does it
> really matter? As long as we all know to stop at a "red" traffic
> light and go on the "green", we can safely interact.
>
That's right. colour/light is just one particular band of vibration which
we can actually sense, it doesn't really matter if sombody elses sense
aren't acurate, calling a colour blue is just a way of verbally showing
what you experience - theres nothing in it though. BUT even if you can't
see a certain colour "properly" or as most people do, even though visually
it won't effect you in the same way, it will still effect you the same as
everybody else - EG ultra violet is cleansing and cool.
I don't claim I'm right, these are just my theorys and ideas.
Mikky Power
ESP: http://www.getnet.com.au/esp
TM Music Productions http://www.getnet.com.au/tmpro
mik...@dial.pipex.com
Generic
>I can't think of anything currently observable or measurable that is neither
>energy nor matter. You must be obliquely suggesting that a soul is nothing more
>than a notion, and has no real existence.
>
>>Wizard, that was a nice clean thrust to the heart of the matter.
>>Congratulations.
>>
>
>Astrologer
>
>At Calvery, one of the two thieves was saved.
>That's a reasonable percentage.
When placed on very sensitive scales, humans lose 1/4 of an ounce at
the moment of death. Perhaps the soul is matter, yet very lightweight.
John DeLaughter
kb...@goodnet.com (Generic) writes:
>When placed on very sensitive scales, humans lose 1/4 of an ounce at
>the moment of death. Perhaps the soul is matter, yet very lightweight.
That's an urban legend; go check out the UL homepage for more info.
John DeLaughter
misha
ban...@okstate.edu (Barry A) wrote:
>ml...@po.cwru.edu (misha) wrote:
>>a...@math.ams.org (Alan Harder) wrote:
well, i can see that someone is proud of having read descrates,
understood it, identified him as the father of philosophy and noticed
that i was using his philosophy to try to prove a point. well done, i
must say!
p.s. another empty post...
Chris Parson
> When placed on very sensitive scales, humans lose 1/4 of an ounce at
> the moment of death. Perhaps the soul is matter, yet very lightweight.
I've read this factoid somewhere. Couldn't it just be the deceased's
last exhalhation? The passing of a little gas?
Erik M
Generic wrote:
>
> When placed on very sensitive scales, humans lose 1/4 of an ounce at
> the moment of death. Perhaps the soul is matter, yet very lightweight.
Give me break. On whom did you do this little experiment?
Starboy
I've heard this quoted in a few various different places,...so there must
be more to it than just this guy.
STarboy
jimmy
If we dispense with the idea of "soul",we might figure out that we are
all the same person,identical in subjectivity,with genetic and
socialization factors causing incidental differences.
Roger
Erik M wrote:
>
> Generic wrote:
> >
> > When placed on very sensitive scales, humans lose 1/4 of an ounce at
> > the moment of death. Perhaps the soul is matter, yet very lightweight.
>
> Give me break. On whom did you do this little experiment?
Has anyone know of someone tripping that kept getting urges to kill
other people. I had a freind that kept begging the otehrs with him to
go a kill someone to simply experience what it would be like.
Anyone have this urge seriously pop into his min or the mind of a
friend?
winky
Starboy wrote:
>
> I've heard this quoted in a few various different places,...so there must
> be more to it than just this guy.
> STarboy
>
> > Generic wrote:
> > >
> > > When placed on very sensitive scales, humans lose 1/4 of an ounce at
> > > the moment of death. Perhaps the soul is matter, yet very lightweight.
> >
> > Give me break. On whom did you do this little experiment?
> >
> >
Yea, but again, who tested this? Some guy at the U. of Minnesota medical
school start killing people to find out? Let's be realistic, no one but
the nazis could such a thing. And I highly doubt that the bastards would
have.
DarkTower
noah
We must contact Jack Kavorkian and have him weigh his next "patient" :)
> > Generic wrote:
> > >
> > > When placed on very sensitive scales, humans lose 1/4 of an ounce at
> > > the moment of death. Perhaps the soul is matter, yet very lightweight.
or perhaps Generic is an idiot and the soul was invented to facilitate
dogma and control the masses: PAY YOUR TAXES OR GO TO HELL!!!
Mark Summers
jimmy <ann...@lex.infi.net> wrote:
Noone is dispensing with the idea of a 'soul'. But, if humans have a
soul, it would not be physical, but spirital. Also, no scale will
measure it.
Atlas
>
>
> Has anyone know of someone tripping that kept getting urges to kill
> other people. I had a freind that kept begging the otehrs with him to
> go a kill someone to simply experience what it would be like.
>
> Anyone have this urge seriously pop into his min or the mind of a
> friend?
yes, i get that urge all the time. you should try following your
emotions sometime, it's really a great experience. just make sure your
carefull where you put the body.
Atlas
p.s. if you hear about a dead guy being found in the N.Y.C. water
resiviors, keep your damn mouth shut.
Rich Bernstein
Scattered Brother <bro...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>tOrchie wrote:
>>
>> misha wrote:
>> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
>> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>>
>> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
>> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
>> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
>
>Torchie, we know that 2 apples +2 apples = 4 forms called apples, but in reallity this
>is not true, because all the apples are dif. sizes. So it would actually =3.something
>or 4.somethig depending on what the decided size of the apple "really" was.
We don't have 3.something or 4.something apples, though... We have 4
apples of different sizes. That is, 2 apples of any size + 2 apples
of any size = 4 apples of any size. It is not dependent on size. You
could also do this, if you want to go size-dependent. 2 apples of
standard size/mass/etc + 2 standard apples = 4 standard apples. That
means that you will have exatly 4*mass of 1 apples, 4*volume of one
apple, etc.
Rich Bernstein (ri...@ziplink.net)
Rich Bernstein
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>misha:
>
>>> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
>>> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
>
>tOrchie:
>
>>> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
>>> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
>>> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
>
>Scattered Brother <bro...@cyberspace.org>:
>
>>Torchie, we know that 2 apples +2 apples = 4 forms called apples, but
>>in reallity this is not true, because all the apples are dif. sizes.
>>So it would actually =3.something or 4.somethig depending on what the
>>decided size of the apple "really" was.
>
> tOrchie isn't wrong, exactly -- he's just over-generalizing.
>His point apples, I mean, applies to adding asterisks, but it's not
>valid when you toss in a wild-card.
How many apples do you get when you add 2 apples to 2 apples? I get
4. These apples may not all be the same size, but they're still
apples.
Rich Bernstein (ri...@ziplink.net)
moggin
misha:
> >>> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
> >>> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
tOrchie:
> >>> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
> >>> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
> >>> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
Scattered Brother <bro...@cyberspace.org>:
> >>Torchie, we know that 2 apples +2 apples = 4 forms called apples, but
> >>in reallity this is not true, because all the apples are dif. sizes.
> >>So it would actually =3.something or 4.somethig depending on what the
> >>decided size of the apple "really" was.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
> > tOrchie isn't wrong, exactly -- he's just over-generalizing.
> >His point apples, I mean, applies to adding asterisks, but it's not
> >valid when you toss in a wild-card.
ri...@ziplink.net (Rich Bernstein):
> How many apples do you get when you add 2 apples to 2 apples? I get
> 4. These apples may not all be the same size, but they're still
> apples.
It looks to me like you've turned the apples into asterisks --
that's what I think. You may not agree -- but the at the very least
you've added an asterisk to them, like this: "Apples.*" And below,
in the fine print: "*May not all be same size."
-- moggin
Vlad Taltos
Rich Bernstein wrote:
>
> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>
> >misha:
> >
> >>> > just like we don't know that 2+2 is really 4. we simply assume it is so
> >>> > and base many of our sciences on the assumption.
> >
> >tOrchie:
> >
> >>> WHAT?! Of course we know that 2+2=4. That is impossible to doubt.
> >>> We know that ** + ** = **** and then we just assign words/numbers
> >>> <which are concepts> to the actual shapes <which are precepts>.
> >
> >Scattered Brother <bro...@cyberspace.org>:
> >
> >>Torchie, we know that 2 apples +2 apples = 4 forms called apples, but
> >>in reallity this is not true, because all the apples are dif. sizes.
> >>So it would actually =3.something or 4.somethig depending on what the
> >>decided size of the apple "really" was.
> >
> >His point apples, I mean, applies to adding asterisks, but it's not
> >valid when you toss in a wild-card.
>
> 4. These apples may not all be the same size, but they're still
> apples.
That all depends on the base we are working in. This question wouldn't
exist in binary!
--
Vlad Taltos (Dan)
vl...@freespace.net
http://www.freespace.net/~vlad
May your Will be as strong as the Oak.
misha
"M. Hough" <mhh> wrote:
>ml...@po.cwru.edu (misha) wrote:
>>joe,
>>
>> i don't think that soul and energy is one and the same. neither do i
>>think that the same physical properties apply to a soul as to other
>>matter/energy. matter and energy are interchangable through einstein's
>>e=mc^2 formula. i don't know if a soul can be placed in the same place
>>with either one...
>>
>>debatable.
>>
>Actually, Newton said neither. Thermodynamics stated that energy cannot be
>created or destroyed - it can, however change form freely. Hence our bodies
>transform stored chemical energy in muscle into kinetic energy when we move.
>Matter was thought to be precserved in the same way - an atom is an atom is an
>atom.
> Now, Einstein changed all that by equating matter and energy - so we have:
> "The total mass-energy of a closed system is preserved"
>
>So when the body decomposes after death, some of thematter is digested and
>releases it's stored chemical energy, some reains as er.. compost.
>If you are countiung souls as "energy patterns" then I suppose they could leave
>the body in some way, but science has nothing to say about that at ;ppresent.
notice that i said that a soul is neither matter nor energy. it
doesn't follow the laws of science. the science doesn't understand the
soul. so far.
but hey, give them a few more years and they'll come up with the
answer! (that's what my philosophy teachers loves to say)
>o much for melding science and religion. Although I like your idea
science is a religion.
the terms are interchangeable.
misha
ri...@ziplink.net (Rich Bernstein) wrote:
>We don't have 3.something or 4.something apples, though... We have 4
>apples of different sizes. That is, 2 apples of any size + 2 apples
>of any size = 4 apples of any size. It is not dependent on size. You
>could also do this, if you want to go size-dependent. 2 apples of
>standard size/mass/etc + 2 standard apples = 4 standard apples. That
>means that you will have exatly 4*mass of 1 apples, 4*volume of one
>apple, etc.
>Rich Bernstein (ri...@ziplink.net)
your logic is correct. however, the argument that i started out with
has nothing to do with the inherent correctness of logical statements.
for example, a square always has only four sides. that really doesn't
concern me and there isn't much more to say about that. what i'm
interested in is the break up of logic. i'm interested in a circular
square, or a triangluar circle: a logical impossibility. a triangle
that has 4 sides. can you conceptualize these things? if so, you can
bravely say that 2+2 is no longer 4.
John DeLaughter
ml...@po.cwru.edu writes:
<SNIP! To typos>
Where you wrote:
>science is a religion.
>the terms are interchangeable.
What you should have written is:
"Science is a-religion, as it has no basis whatsoever in faith. The
terms are not interchangable, any more than `blue' and `ten feet' are.
They deal with fundamentally different things."
John DeLaughter
Digital Voodoo
"If you think I float, and I think I float, then I float."
I bet that sqrt -1 thinks that 2 is an imaginary number.
By the way, couldn't the big bang have just been the side effect
of some really big guy eating too many beans?
And what is the smallest factor of 3?
And is it the same at the speed of light?
Screw your Grecian idea of Logic! It was wrong three thousand
years ago, and it is wrong now!
misha <ml...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in article
<55oguc$m...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
winky
Digital Voodoo wrote:
>
> "If you think I float, and I think I float, then I float."
> I bet that sqrt -1 thinks that 2 is an imaginary number.
> By the way, couldn't the big bang have just been the side effect
> of some really big guy eating too many beans?
> And what is the smallest factor of 3?
> And is it the same at the speed of light?
> Screw your Grecian idea of Logic! It was wrong three thousand
> years ago, and it is wrong now!
Begin
flame============================================================
Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] Lamer [ ] Aol'er
[ ] "Me too" er [ ] Pervert [x ] Geek
[ ] Spammer [x ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[ ] Fed [ ] Freak [ ] Scientologist
[ ] Scammer [ ] Dumbass [ ] Pre-teen
[ ] Obnoxious Advocacy Freak [ ] Paranoid Mutant [ ] Brain-dead
Liberal
You Are Being Flamed Because:
[ ] You posted binaries in pieces LESS than 5000 lines
[ ] You posted something asking for warez sites
[ ] You quoted an ENTIRE post in your reply
[X ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[X] You started/continued an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ ] You posted a blatently obvious troll
[ ] You said "me too" to something
[ ] You suck (literally]
[ ] Your sig/alias/server sucks
[ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme
[ ] I think you might be a fed
[ ] You posted in 3lIt3 CaPiTaLs because you think that makes you
cool
[ ] You posted a an obnoxious spam message
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally
worthless that you are being flamed anyway
To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Give up your Internet access
[ ] Hang yourself
[ ] Tell your Mommy you've been a bad boy
[ ] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[X] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Install a brain that actaully works
[ ] Read the FAQ
[ ] Have a nail driven into your forehead
[ ] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] Blow me
[X ] Get a life
[ ] Never post again
[ ] Age 10 more years before you post again
[ ] You couldn't do anything with a brain if you had one
[ ] Go to hell
[ ] Yer momma's so fat/stupid/ugly that etc...
[ ] Get fucked, you pathetic loser
[ ] All of the above
End
flame===============================================================
;)
DarkTower
Kwyxta
misha <ml...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in article
<55oid6$m...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
> "M. Hough" <mhh> wrote:
>
> >ml...@po.cwru.edu (misha) wrote:
>
> science is a religion.
> the terms are interchangeable.
> --
> "listen, there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!" e.e.cummings
>
>
Let's slide together professor, the next window will open exactly 30
PARSECONDS from NOW!
This singularity has finally broken through the Nth dimentional matrices of
the current reality and
we are running out of alternate Worlds.......
In the End only time will tell
Kwyxta snr.