All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
bike in peace?
"Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
survival and it will be more and more so as we progress toward the
end. Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
> >All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> >consumption, revolution... We are in trouble
> You and your dog are in trouble?
> You mean the super-volcano?
> You mean the asteroid?
> The next ice age?
> Your Red Giant?
> >and it asks the most
> >important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
> Well, you see, your planet, that you call Earth
> is geologically active. Super-volcanoes explode
> and at times a mass extinction occurs.
> Earth, as you call it, is also bombarded at times
> by what are called meteors. Some large space rocks
> are also known as asteriods. The collide with your planet
> and sometimes a mass extinction occurs.
> When the dinosaurs got wiped out, about 65 million
> or so years ago, there appear to have been both
> perfectly natural events happening at the same time.
> Your planet also experiences Ice Ages regularly.
> At present, your species enjoys an inter-glacial period.
> This period will last for a spell, then ice will again
> cover a large portion of the surface, totally crushing
> your species' building projects. New York City, last time,
> was buried under about a mile of ice.
> Eventually your star, the Sun as you may know it,
> will expand into a red giant sphere, envelope the Earth
> and wipe out everything that remains on the surface.
> Anything you and your dog do in between these events,
> all of which are very likely to occur, basically amounts to
> spinning your wheels without getting traction.
> You appear to have a very narrow focus.
> A sort of tight-knit mental framework
> within which your operating system
> falls rather short, kinda flat, on its face.
> >It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> >to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet?
> I have no idea why you and your dog
> would do something like that. Maybe you
> and he are reckless destroyers of your world-
> view as you see fit to see it.
> > Why can't we ride a bike in peace?
> That's probably a mental situation.
> Many if not most of us cyclists are able to.
> Why you are unable to
> may have something
> to do with your attitude. Your outlook.
> >"Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> >survival
> Guess what. You're not going to survive.
> Not in your present physical form.
> Each day
> what was before
> is no longer. Yesterday survives
> only in recent memory.
> Your body is different now
> than it was when you were born.
> Your old young baby-body survived
> and survives after a fashion of thought.
> When you perish thoughts of survival
> you may learn to live and to thrive
> rather than merely survive.
> Perhaps then you will be able to bike in peace.
> Maybe even with a thrill of adrenaline
> rushing thru your body in traffic.
> Never know tho, bouts you.
> >and it will be more and more so as we progress toward the
> >end.
> Sounds a bit bleak to me.
> > Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
> >and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
> That hope appears somewhat doubtful.
> In your particular case in particular.
> You do not appear to have the capacity
> to transcend basic dualistic n'oceans.
> Unable to sea
> you don't ride the waves.
> The surf is up
> but you don't have a board.
> You could body-surf
> if you were able to get beyond
> identification with your bodily form.
> As a Flat-lander your perceptions tend
> to be extremely limited in perspective.
You know, you could make a lot of money working for the corporations
that try to confuse the public. But you only succeed in making
yourself and the Buddhist philosophy look bad.
Someone as smart as I am posts this comment to the video above:
'This is not Progress, on the contrary, it's just called this way but
we are actually destroying ourselves. Evolution and progress means
helping the World and this way ourselves to live better. Destroying
everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
evolving. This is just a lie of the governemnts run by the giant
corporations (petrol industry, for example) That's what it's all
about...'
> TibetanMonkey wrote:
> > Destroying
> >everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
> >evolving.
> If the asteroid and volcanoes didn't wipe out dinosaurs
> then your species and many mammals would not have
> evolved into what you are now.
> If you think it's progress, then that's your thought.
> The dinosaurs might not agree.
> Or perhaps they took
> flight and grew feathers, as a result of the mass
> extinction event. The destruction of everything
> they had about 65 million years ago.
Sorry, I didn't know you were totally ignorant of evolution. Feathers
existed before the asteroid. It was the mammals that launched their
revolution after the stupid dinosaurs were gone.
If we follow your logic atomic bombs are welcomed.
>> > Destroying
>> >everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
>> >evolving.
>> If the asteroid and volcanoes didn't wipe out dinosaurs
>> then your species and many mammals would not have
>> evolved into what you are now.
>> If you think it's progress, then that's your thought.
>> The dinosaurs might not agree.
>> Or perhaps they took
>> flight and grew feathers, as a result of the mass
>> extinction event. The destruction of everything
>> they had about 65 million years ago.
>Sorry, I didn't know you were totally ignorant of evolution.
"With the complicity of a devastating asteroid, volcanism, and nest
predation in a million-or-so-year span, extinction of the dinosaur was
almost completely accomplished at the end of the Cretaceous about 65
million years ago. No dinosaurs were left on earth, except birds that
had swam to polar lands and birds that had flown to safer havens than
bare ground and had developed stratagems, in groups or in pairs, to
protect their eggs and young.
Worldwide, the asteroid collision contributed almost entirely to the
discontinuance of flightless aquatic birds -- except for the penguin
and its northern black-and-white flightless counterpart, the great
auk, ... "
> It was the mammals that launched their
>revolution after the stupid dinosaurs were gone.
You think you are smarter than a dinosaur?
Silly human. You think you will survive the asteroid?
Do you think you'll survive the super-volcano?
>If we follow your logic atomic bombs are welcomed.
Maybe by roaches.
After the asteroid or super-volcano impacts your planet,
whatever is left alive will have room to expand,
to fill the niches opened up.
Evolution will continue.
What it has in store for you, you have no clue.
Do you think that by slowing climate change
that you can affect the next ice age?
For all you know, a warmer climate may be the answer to the next ice age.
By trying to not allow it to occur
you might only hasten your demise.
You may think what you call pollution is bad.
For all you know it might actually be good
and by trying to scrub yourself clean
you are only making yourself weak
and subject to dis-ease.
> >> > Destroying
> >> >everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
> >> >evolving.
> >> If the asteroid and volcanoes didn't wipe out dinosaurs
> >> then your species and many mammals would not have
> >> evolved into what you are now.
> >> If you think it'sprogress, then that's your thought.
> >> The dinosaurs might not agree.
> >> Or perhaps they took
> >> flight and grew feathers, as a result of the mass
> >> extinction event. The destruction of everything
> >> they had about 65 million years ago.
> >Sorry, I didn't know you were totally ignorant of evolution.
> "With the complicity of a devastating asteroid, volcanism, and nest
> predation in a million-or-so-year span, extinction of the dinosaur was
> almost completely accomplished at the end of the Cretaceous about 65
> million years ago. No dinosaurs were left on earth, except birds that
> had swam to polar lands and birds that had flown to safer havens than
> bare ground and had developed stratagems, in groups or in pairs, to
> protect their eggs and young.
> Worldwide, the asteroid collision contributed almost entirely to the
> discontinuance of flightless aquatic birds -- except for the penguin
> and its northern black-and-white flightless counterpart, the great
> auk, ... "
> > It was the mammals that launched their
> >revolution after the stupid dinosaurs were gone.
> You think you are smarter than a dinosaur?
> Silly human. You think you will survive the asteroid?
> Do you think you'll survive the super-volcano?
> >If we follow your logic atomic bombs are welcomed.
> Maybe by roaches.
You make so sense. Roaches would love humans --if you did a survey--
because they eat more thanks to us. It's an educated guess that the
population of roaches, rats and raccoons would crash after the big
one. They will survive though.
Cats will become a super predator and fat cats will be no more. But
the cats already rule around here, so they must be planning the
takeover.
> After the asteroid or super-volcano impacts your planet,
> whatever is left alive will have room to expand,
> to fill the niches opened up.
> Evolution will continue.
> What it has in store for you, you have no clue.
You are changing evolution in ways similar to a catastrophic asteroid
or volcano. All in the name of "progress."
> Do you think that by slowing climate change
> that you can affect the next ice age?
> For all you know, a warmer climate
> may be the answer to the next ice age.
> By trying to not allow it to occur
> you might only hasten your demise.
> You may think what you call pollution is bad.
Yes, try sleeping in your car while the engine is running in a closed
garage.
Then get back to me.
> For all you know it might actually be good
> and by trying to scrub yourself clean
> you are only making yourself weak
> and subject to dis-ease.
> You will not be assimilated.
Listen to this man of science saying the same thing I'm saying. He
calls you an animal, but I'm sure you'll take no offense like the
people of Texas did. But this scientist doesn't consider us a smart
animal. Only the philosopher and the man of science are smart. The
rest just follow or try to survive in a way dictated by the economy
and a sick concept of "progress."
It's a long video so grab a cup of tea and enjoy the show...
> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> > bike in peace?
> You make false assumptions;
> (1) Are we destroying the planet? I say NO.
> (2) Will Bicycles save the planet? I say NO
Yes, bicycles minimize the impact of humans.
> > "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> > survival
> This is true, finally you actually tell the truth... but life is always
> about survival, you are just a single snapshot in time. You don't see
> beyond you, it's mildly narcissistic.
You just make it more dangerous than it should be. My idea of fun
doesn't include fighting traffic.
> > and it will be more and more so as we progress toward the
> > end.
> Maybe as you progress toward your end you will see it more and more
> because that's what you look for.
We only got one planer. If you are wrong, future generations pay the
price. Well, NYC is already paying the price.
> > Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
> > and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
> The cage is your small frame of reference.
> That makes life more like the Occupy movement where we will have to
> ignore the powers that be and elect to live under anarchy through
> PASSIVE RESISTANCE.
That's the only way to go. We must be smart.
In order for your theory to work you have to move to the Moon and try
surviving in a hostile environment. The rest of us --those who believe
in prevention-- stay here on Earth.
> --
> *Rumination*
> #30 - Socialism will eventually run out of other people's money and
> collapse.\
Close all those parks and libraries already "occupied" by the
homeless. Drop the war on drugs. Cut down Medicare. Sorry, that's the
Holy Cow.
>> >> > Destroying
>> >> >everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
>> >> >evolving.
>> >> If the asteroid and volcanoes didn't wipe out dinosaurs
>> >> then your species and many mammals would not have
>> >> evolved into what you are now.
>> >> If you think it'sprogress, then that's your thought.
>> >> The dinosaurs might not agree.
>> >> Or perhaps they took
>> >> flight and grew feathers, as a result of the mass
>> >> extinction event. The destruction of everything
>> >> they had about 65 million years ago.
>> >Sorry, I didn't know you were totally ignorant of evolution.
>> "With the complicity of a devastating asteroid, volcanism, and nest
>> predation in a million-or-so-year span, extinction of the dinosaur was
>> almost completely accomplished at the end of the Cretaceous about 65
>> million years ago. No dinosaurs were left on earth, except birds that
>> had swam to polar lands and birds that had flown to safer havens than
>> bare ground and had developed stratagems, in groups or in pairs, to
>> protect their eggs and young.
>> Worldwide, the asteroid collision contributed almost entirely to the
>> discontinuance of flightless aquatic birds -- except for the penguin
>> and its northern black-and-white flightless counterpart, the great
>> auk, ... "
>> > It was the mammals that launched their
>> >revolution after the stupid dinosaurs were gone.
>> You think you are smarter than a dinosaur?
>> Silly human. You think you will survive the asteroid?
>> Do you think you'll survive the super-volcano?
>> >If we follow your logic atomic bombs are welcomed.
>> Maybe by roaches.
>You make so sense.
Not even ultra-violet nor infra-red?
> Roaches would love humans -
I'm sure they'd miss your species
after your atomic bombs destroyed your kind.
>-if you did a survey--
>because they eat more thanks to us.
Perhaps they could eat your carcasses.
> It's an educated guess that the
>population of roaches, rats and raccoons would crash after the big
>one. They will survive though.
>> After the asteroid or super-volcano impacts your planet,
>> whatever is left alive will have room to expand,
>> to fill the niches opened up.
>> Evolution will continue.
>> What it has in store for you, you have no clue.
>You are changing evolution in ways similar to a catastrophic asteroid
>or volcano. All in the name of "progress."
>> Do you think that by slowing climate change
>> that you can affect the next ice age?
>> For all you know, a warmer climate
>> may be the answer to the next ice age.
>> By trying to not allow it to occur
>> you might only hasten your demise.
>> You may think what you call pollution is bad.
>Yes, try sleeping in your car while the engine is running in a closed
>garage.
>Then get back to me.
What is bad for you
may not be bad for Earth, nor for Life
not found on your planet. Nor perhaps
for your offspring, if any survived
the asteroid or super-volcano.
>> For all you know it might actually be good
>> and by trying to scrub yourself clean
>> you are only making yourself weak
>> and subject to dis-ease.
>> You will not be assimilated.
>Listen to this man of science saying the same thing I'm saying.
I have no idea what you are saying.
You appear to be afraid to ride a bike.
> He calls you an animal,
He knows me?
> but I'm sure you'll take no offense like the
>people of Texas did.
As an animated form of Life,
Life of'ten-k calls its'elf by many names.
> But this scientist doesn't consider us a smart
>animal.
You and your dog may not be
the brightest bulbs in the drawer.
> Only the philosopher and the man of science are smart.
That's it? Musicians aren't smart?
Artists in general aren't smart? Nobody
except philosophers and men of science, eh?
What about mathematicians? Historians?
Students of literature? Are you sure?
Surely you are but a troll.
> The
>rest just follow or try to survive in a way dictated by the economy
>and a sick concept of "progress."
Without leaving your planet
your species is doomed to perish.
If not by asteroid or super-volcano,
your Red Giant will jolly well gobble you
akin to a turkey without giving thanks.
>It's a long video so grab a cup of tea and enjoy the show...
> >> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> >> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> >> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
> >> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> >> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> >> > bike in peace?
> >> You make false assumptions;
> >> (1) Are we destroying the planet? I say NO.
> >> (2) Will Bicycles save the planet? I say NO
> >Yes, bicycles minimize the impact of humans.
> To minimize in some tiny impact crater
> does not do much to save your planet.
> Your planet will be fine without you however.
> Life will go on. Earth, as you call it, will survive.
> Mass-extinctions are perfectly natural.
> Cycles of boom and bust are natural cycles.
> Seasons change and go round and round.
> Spring does not progress into summer
> nor does summer progress into autumn.
> To revolve around a star, to make one complete
> revolution is to spiral out, in the arms of a galaxy.
> If you stay on your planet, you are doomed.
> Your planet will survive. Your species will not survive.
> >> > "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> >> > survival
> >> This is true, finally you actually tell the truth... but life is always
> >> about survival, you are just a single snapshot in time. You don't see
> >> beyond you, it's mildly narcissistic.
> >You just make it more dangerous than it should be. My idea of fun
> >doesn't include fighting traffic.
> Then why not go where there is no traffic?
> You seem to insist on not having fun
> by fighting traffic. Perhaps it is dense
> where you live, inside your head, traffic-wise.
> If you want to have fun, then go where traffic is not.
> That only makes sense. Do you have more than five?
> All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
> It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> bike in peace?
> "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> survival and it will be more and more so as we progress toward the
> end. Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
> and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
pi wrote:
>One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
>overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Are you thinking in terms of monotheisms, polytheisms,
pantheisms, panentheisms and other forms of theism
along with deism and deisms?
You may need to define what you mean by, "religious"
as well as the term, "thinking" for clarity.
For me, religion connotes how world-views are tied
or retied, with the term supposedly arising from Latin,
re-legare, to re-bind. As if one's view came apart
and had to be stitched back into a whole cloth.
If, in that sense, one holds to a scientific view
as if that view actually is the way things are,
then that could be called a form of religion.
So too with agnosticism, skepticism, or any position
held to be how one thinks, whenever the view is clung to through and through, including nationalism,
environmentalism, alcoholism, etcetera.
If a person can be said to think without words,
and behaves in a regular way, so much so that his
or her actions could be predicted in various circumstances,
along with, perhaps, some ritual stuff, akin to the empty
cans of kerosine kicked around by a primate, then
that kind of religious thinking may be known.
>I guess it all started way ... way before 10,000 BC:
thinkeringing wrote:
> pi wrote:
> >One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
> >overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
> I'm not sure what you mean.
Oh, I am sorry, this is just my clumsy English again. Please let me
quote Pinker to express what I really meant:
"Religious belief is not likely to be a biological adaptation itself,
but rather a by-product of cognitive faculties that have evolved for
other purposes."
I am sorry if I'm mixing knowing, believing and thinking (all of which
have precise technical meaning with which I am not yet familiar). What
I think I meant by "kinds of religious thinking" was some kind of
typology of the uses across history of this cognitive ability to
conceptualize of agency which transcends ours, plus some kind of
systematization of inheritance of traditions in this regard. "World
religions for atheists" or something like that :)
> Are you thinking in terms of monotheisms, polytheisms,
> pantheisms, panentheisms and other forms of theism
> along with deism and deisms?
Right.
> You may need to define what you mean by, "religious"
> as well as the term, "thinking" for clarity.
Absolutely. I realized that once I've read your post.
> For me, religion connotes how world-views are tied
> or retied, with the term supposedly arising from Latin,
> re-legare, to re-bind. As if one's view came apart
> and had to be stitched back into a whole cloth.
Great, thank you :)
> If, in that sense, one holds to a scientific view
> as if that view actually is the way things are,
> then that could be called a form of religion.
I guess the above is just about the only thing which can be said with
absolute ;) certainty.
> So too with agnosticism, skepticism, or any position
> held to be how one thinks, whenever the view is clung
> to through and through, including nationalism,
> environmentalism, alcoholism, etcetera.
Right.
> If a person can be said to think without words,
> and behaves in a regular way, so much so that his
> or her actions could be predicted in various circumstances,
> along with, perhaps, some ritual stuff, akin to the empty
> cans of kerosine kicked around by a primate, then
> that kind of religious thinking may be known.
I couldn't agree more.
> >I guess it all started way ... way before 10,000 BC:
>> >One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
>> >overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
>> I'm not sure what you mean.
>Oh, I am sorry, this is just my clumsy English again. Please let me
>quote Pinker to express what I really meant:
>"Religious belief is not likely to be a biological adaptation itself,
>but rather a by-product of cognitive faculties that have evolved for
>other purposes."
Views from the inside out
or from the outside in,
from the material
to the spiritual
or from the spiritual
to the material,
may tend to differ a bit.
This morning I got up
and sat down.
Sitting and meditating
thoughts arose pertaining to life,
and revolved around organisms.
Each cell in one's body
is said to have a life of its own.
Each is a single-celled organism.
It's doubtful if any single cell
is able to comprehend the being
of which it is but a singular cell.
Each organ of a larger organism is
more likely than a single cell
to be in a position to feel
more of what the organism feels.
It's fashionable now-a-daze
to think the brain comprehends.
It's less fashionable to center oneself
in the heart region of the body.
Yet it may be said how the heart knows
or how the gut knows. And perhaps they do.
It's a fashion of thought to think in terms
of nation-states, of countries, cities, towns.
It may appear to one how each designation
is a type of organism, taking on a life
of its own in various ways.
They are born, grow, are fed, expand,
and eventually pass away. They have,
or could be said to have, cells, organisms,
people, within them, few of which are aware
of the state as a whole in all of its parts.
Awareness tends to be limited.
An individual species
might be thought of as being
an organism in and of itself.
This type of thought stretches
the fabric of fashion down its walkway.
And yet, to a single cell in one's body,
the body as a whole, you, are as a god.
You might be aware of a single cell
or a group of cells, as a whole.
To a corporation or a body-politic,
a boss or a king might be as a god
who is normally unconcerned with any
single worker-cell within itself.
And yet, he or she could be.
There could be, at times, a realization,
which might be said to be adaptive,
and not just a byproduct of cognition,
where a cell or an organ becomes aware
of higher orders of organization
within a particular organism.
For all people know,
a planet or a solar system
might be as a cell or an organ
in a larger organism. And that larger
organism could have some form of awareness,
of consciousness, be as a god to its individual cells.
A realization of such a situation, an experience,
might be scoffed at, just as if a blood cell,
be it red or white, were able to communicate,
as might one flat-lander to another, of a sphere,
or some other higher order geometry.
Religious experiences
may be attempted to be put into thought,
into words. Such thinking may be bound
to fall short, on deaf ears, unable to be
seen by those without eyes
able to sea.
pi wrote:
> thinkeringing wrote:
>> pi wrote:
>>> One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is
>>> an overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
>> I'm not sure what you mean.
> Oh, I am sorry, this is just my clumsy English again. Please let me
> quote Pinker to express what I really meant:
> "Religious belief is not likely to be a biological adaptation itself,
> but rather a by-product of cognitive faculties that have evolved for
> other purposes."
> I am sorry if I'm mixing knowing, believing and thinking (all of which
> have precise technical meaning with which I am not yet familiar). What
> I think I meant by "kinds of religious thinking" was some kind of
> typology of the uses across history of this cognitive ability to
> conceptualize of agency which transcends ours, plus some kind of
> systematization of inheritance of traditions in this regard. "World
> religions for atheists" or something like that :)
>> Are you thinking in terms of monotheisms, polytheisms,
>> pantheisms, panentheisms and other forms of theism
>> along with deism and deisms?
> Right.
>> You may need to define what you mean by, "religious"
>> as well as the term, "thinking" for clarity.
> Absolutely. I realized that once I've read your post.
>> For me, religion connotes how world-views are tied
>> or retied, with the term supposedly arising from Latin,
>> re-legare, to re-bind. As if one's view came apart
>> and had to be stitched back into a whole cloth.
> Great, thank you :)
>> If, in that sense, one holds to a scientific view
>> as if that view actually is the way things are,
>> then that could be called a form of religion.
> I guess the above is just about the only thing which can be said with
> absolute ;) certainty.
>> So too with agnosticism, skepticism, or any position
>> held to be how one thinks, whenever the view is clung
>> to through and through, including nationalism,
>> environmentalism, alcoholism, etcetera.
> Right.
>> If a person can be said to think without words,
>> and behaves in a regular way, so much so that his
>> or her actions could be predicted in various circumstances,
>> along with, perhaps, some ritual stuff, akin to the empty
>> cans of kerosine kicked around by a primate, then
>> that kind of religious thinking may be known.
> I couldn't agree more.
>>> I guess it all started way ... way before 10,000 BC:
Reflectinkering with religious types of views,
it dawns on me how a view to the east
is not particularly wrong. Nor is a view to
the north, or to the west or south.
A view, looking up, reveals a sight.
With a view, looking down, one may see
something or things on the ground.
It's not uncommon for some folks to sum up
their thinking in terms of the material or physical.
They may suppose, for example, that schools
of thought arise from the brain. As if the grey
matter is what matters.
Such thinking might suppose, then,
that it is the physical, the material components
of a geographical area which give rise to empires, to China, to the States, etc.
As if it were the buildings in New York City
that are, at root, why thoughts are thought
within that particular region.
As if mind arises from structures
rather than structures arising out of spirit.
As if there are differences. Other than of view.
It is a strange facet of language, perhaps,
that people may think and feel as if they have or are
a body.
One might say, for instance, one has a flat,
as if one is a car. Or one may think or feel,
rather, that one has a car, as one has
an arm or a leg, a heart or a lung.
People may feel, and think, as if
they are members of a family, or a nation,
and take it very personally if their group
is perceived as being attacked.
As if they are more than simply
individuals, brains, material entities.
Words tend to have lots of meanings.
Thought might be fashioned to carry
meanings along its streams or in trains.
On the banks, off the rails,thoughts might
run the course of deltas or along parallel
or skewed lines of change or reason.
>>>>> One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is
>>>>> an overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
Some may say
self is an illusion.
Some may say
self is an appearance.
Sew two with mind.
An individual, for sum, is
said to be a body, with mind
a type of product of the body
out of which a mind emerges.
A country, for sum, may be
seen to have a mind of its own,
in a manner of thinking, of speakinging.
Nonsense, some may say. A country
has within it people. The land has no mind
aside from the people who live within its borders.
Just so, may say some, a body
has within it neurons. The body has no mind
aside from the neurons that live within
its borders.
A country could be said to be of many minds.
As well, a body, even a brain, can be seen
to have many minds, many groups
of neurons within it.
One may wonder, given kings and rulers
of great measure, if a small group, a cluster
of neurons might be in control at some time.
Or if one, could be said to be in charge,
leading the way, as energy cascades,
among the many, neurons, within
the borders of a body.
Spreading as ripples throughout,
larger bodies may feel it. Countries
going to war. Wars within one's body.
Within one's mind, between minds
found within one's brain.
Illusions. Appearances.
Known kinds of religious thinking.
Tinkering and reflectinkeringings
of ideas at length, in depth, as cubic
roots, perhaps of a minus one.
Complex systems can be said to be
sensitive to initial conditionings.
> pi wrote:
> >thinkeringing wrote:
> >> pi wrote:
> >> >One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
> >> >overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
> >> I'm not sure what you mean.
> >Oh, I am sorry, this is just my clumsy English again. Please let me
> >quote Pinker to express what I really meant:
> >"Religious belief is not likely to be a biological adaptation itself,
> >but rather a by-product of cognitive faculties that have evolved for
> >other purposes."
> Views from the inside out
> or from the outside in,
> from the material
> to the spiritual
> or from the spiritual
> to the material,
> may tend to differ a bit.
> This morning
> I got up
> and sat down.
> Sitting and meditating
> thoughts arose pertaining to life,
> and revolved around organisms.
> Each cell in one's body
> is said to have a life of its own.
> Each is a single-celled organism.
> It's doubtful if any single cell
> is able to comprehend the being
> of which it is but a singular cell.
> Each organ of a larger organism is
> more likely than a single cell
> to be in a position to feel
> more of what the organism feels.
> It's fashionable now-a-daze
> to think the brain comprehends.
> It's less fashionable to center oneself
> in the heart region of the body.
> Yet it may be said how the heart knows
> or how the gut knows. And perhaps they do.
> It's a fashion of thought to think in terms
> of nation-states, of countries, cities, towns.
> It may appear to one how each designation
> is a type of organism, taking on a life
> of its own in various ways.
> They are born, grow, are fed, expand,
> and eventually pass away. They have,
> or could be said to have, cells, organisms,
> people, within them, few of which are aware
> of the state as a whole in all of its parts.
> Awareness tends to be limited.
> An individual species
> might be thought of as being
> an organism in and of itself.
> This type of thought stretches
> the fabric of fashion down its walkway.
> And yet, to a single cell in one's body,
> the body as a whole, you, are as a god.
> You might be aware of a single cell
> or a group of cells, as a whole.
> To a corporation or a body-politic,
> a boss or a king might be as a god
> who is normally unconcerned with any
> single worker-cell within itself.
> And yet, he or she could be.
> There could be, at times, a realization,
> which might be said to be adaptive,
> and not just a byproduct of cognition,
> where a cell or an organ becomes aware
> of higher orders of organization
> within a particular organism.
> For all people know,
> a planet or a solar system
> might be as a cell or an organ
> in a larger organism. And that larger
> organism could have some form of awareness,
> of consciousness, be as a god
> to its individual cells.
> A realization of such a situation, an experience,
> might be scoffed at, just as if a blood cell,
> be it red or white, were able to communicate,
> as might one flat-lander to another, of a sphere,
> or some other higher order geometry.
> Religious experiences
> may be attempted to be put into thought,
> into words. Such thinking may be bound
> to fall short, on deaf ears, unable to be
> seen by those without eyes
> able to sea.
I've done some research and it pretty much seems this was one of the
two texts (the other one being the Darwin's Descent of man) which lead
to Freud's Totem and taboo :)
Again, thank you very much :)
pi
P.S. Another really nice work in the above spirit I recently consulted
was Bronowski's Ascent of man.
> >>>>> One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is
> >>>>> an overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
> Some may say
> self is an illusion.
> Some may say
> self is an appearance.
> Sew two with mind.
> An individual, for sum, is
> said to be a body, with mind
> a type of product of the body
> out of which a mind emerges.
> A country, for sum, may be
> seen to have a mind of its own,
> in a manner of thinking, of speakinging.
> Nonsense, some may say. A country
> has within it people. The land has no mind
> aside from the people who live within
> its borders.
> Just so, may say some, a body
> has within it neurons. The body has no mind
> aside from the neurons that live within
> its borders.
> A country could be said to be of many minds.
> As well, a body, even a brain, can be seen
> to have many minds, many groups
> of neurons within it.
> One may wonder, given kings and rulers
> of great measure, if a small group, a cluster
> of neurons might be in control at some time.
> Or if one, could be said to be in charge,
> leading the way, as energy cascades,
> among the many, neurons, within
> the borders of a body.
> Spreading as ripples throughout,
> larger bodies may feel it. Countries
> going to war. Wars within one's body.
> Within one's mind, between minds
> found within one's brain.
> Illusions. Appearances.
> Known kinds of religious thinking.
> Tinkering and reflectinkeringings
> of ideas at length, in depth, as cubic
> roots, perhaps of a minus one.
> Complex systems can be said to be
> sensitive to initial conditionings.
> - as the butter flies
> inflection points -
I've never thought of myself as anything much more than a temporary
flux of energy, a coincidential occurence on the outskirts of the
world, a speck of foam on the waves of history.
I mean, if I lived just 100 miles further to the east, my chances of
learning of the existence of alt.zen or Coursera would be down by 95%.
It's luck, that's what it is on my part.
> I've done some research and it pretty much seems this was one of the
> two texts (the other one being the Darwin's Descent of man) which lead
> to Freud's Totem and taboo :)
> Again, thank you very much :)
> pi
> P.S. Another really nice work in the above spirit I recently consulted
> was Bronowski's Ascent of man.
so much anthropology, mainstream and fringe to choose/browse among re. evolution and/of religion :-)
you asked for simple (but academically sound), online, and free. free tends to mean old (with the notable exception of these marvelous MOOCs like Coursera, but you'd already hit the MOOCs). also hunted for some Carl Jeung (also an oldie), but nothing jumped out at me online (lots of his paper books for free in any decent community library).
> > I've done some research and it pretty much seems this was one of the
> > two texts (the other one being the Darwin's Descent of man) which lead
> > to Freud's Totem and taboo :)
> > Again, thank you very much :)
> > pi
> > P.S. Another really nice work in the above spirit I recently consulted
> > was Bronowski's Ascent of man.
> so much anthropology, mainstream and fringe to choose/browse among re.
> evolution and/of religion :-)
> you asked for simple (but academically sound), online, and free. free tends
> to mean old (with the notable exception of these marvelous MOOCs like
> Coursera, but you'd already hit the MOOCs). also hunted for some Carl Jeung
> (also an oldie), but nothing jumped out at me online (lots of his paper
> books for free in any decent community library).
> "Know Thyself" :-)
> -k
All noted, thank you very much :-)
pi
P.S. Actually, it was the MOOCs that hit me through their effective
CNN and TedTalks marketing :-)
> >> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> >> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> >> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
> >> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> >> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> >> > bike in peace?
> >> You make false assumptions;
> >> (1) Are we destroying the planet? I say NO.
> >> (2) Will Bicycles save the planet? I say NO
> >Yes, bicycles minimize the impact of humans.
> To minimize in some tiny impact crater
> does not do much to save your planet.
> Your planet will be fine without you however.
> Life will go on. Earth, as you call it, will survive.
> Mass-extinctions are perfectly natural.
> Cycles of boom and bust are natural cycles.
> Seasons change and go round and round.
> Spring does notprogressinto summer
> nor does summerprogressinto autumn.
> To revolve around a star, to make one complete
> revolution is to spiral out, in the arms of a galaxy.
> If you stay on your planet, you are doomed.
> Your planet will survive. Your species will not survive.
That's the whole idea behind the movie "Wall-E." Humans escape after
trashing this planet, and Wall-E --the little robot-- goes to the
rescue. The automatic pilot has taken over, everybody is fat and they
barely remember the Earth.
> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> > bike in peace?
> > "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> > survival and it will be more and more so as weprogresstoward the
> > end. Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
> > and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
>>> All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
>>> consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
>>> important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
>>> It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
>>> to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
>>> bike in peace?
>>> "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
>>> survival and it will be more and more so as weprogresstoward the
>>> end. Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
>>> and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
>>> All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
>>> consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
>>> important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
>>> It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
>>> to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
>>> bike in peace?
>>> "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
>>> survival and it will be more and more so as weprogresstoward the
>>> end. Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
>>> and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
This is South Africa --assumed to be the most progressive country in
Africa-- and yet having no bicycle culture or infrastructure. Other
countries being poorer perhaps rely more on the bike and less on the
car. Good for them.
Notice the old lady --84 four years old-- who can barely walk but she
rides a bike. Is that the secret to health and longevity? Is the
bicycle the key to real progress in Africa? Of course it is.
Many things are wrong in Africa, including the type of bike they use --
some unreliable Indian bike-- but there's hope before "progress" --
read Western consumption-- destroys communities and lives.
All those goals and more are to be faced by the Bike Revolution --a
revolution in mobility and freedom.
