What Are You Optimistic About
F.H.
Robert McGregor
F.H. wrote:
> http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html
Are you optimistic that scientists will stop wanking themselves on the
future, and instead, rectify what they've done up to now?
http://tinyurl.com/y3hb5f
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP286257.htm
Bob
jimbo
F.H. wrote:
> http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html
I am optimistic that you will see the error of your ways and repent.
Jimbo
F.H.
Truly the height of optimism.
Joe Jared
>
> F.H. wrote:
>> http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html
>
> Are you optimistic that scientists will stop wanking themselves on the
> future, and instead, rectify what they've done up to now?
I'm just grateful the earth is generous to us, in spite of what we do to
it.
--
http://www.oretek.com
If you see weird responses, please do not reply to them.
Simply visit http://www.oretek.com/kookwatch/
F.H.
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 06:07:10 GMT, "F.H." <conn...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html
>
> The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion
>
> I’m so optimistic that I expect to live to see the evaporation of the
> powerful mystique of religion. I think that in about twenty-five years
> almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena,
> so much so that in most quarters religion will no longer command the
> awe it does today. Of course many people–perhaps a majority of people
> in the world–will still cling to their religion with the sort of
> passion that can fuel violence and other intolerant and reprehensible
> behavior. But the rest of the world will see this behavior for what
> it is, and learn to work around it until it subsides, as it surely
> will.
<snip> for space
I recall when I was quite young thinking that religion would not be
around all that long. Little did I know. About how long its been
around, about what drives it. Can't say that I share your optimism but
then I am truly a pessimist when it comes to projecting happy days for
the human race. Here is a recent piece by Sam Harris from the Op/Ed
section of the LA Times. I pasted responses from a few readers at the end.
10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism
By Sam Harris
SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the
Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
December 24, 2006
SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an
extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a
perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black,
Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only
37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for
president.
Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind
to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the
supernatural.
Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment,
believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said,
"promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies,
can have no hold upon an atheist."
That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little
seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never
to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as
atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.
Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent
and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to
deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our
national discourse.
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless
and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal
happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is
precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived.
Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not
last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of
meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and
Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with
fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of
religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such
regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality
cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship.
Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what
happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of
political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society
in human history that ever suffered because its people became too
reasonable.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so
prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written
under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a
person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim
to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be
otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the
historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we
are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you
understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will
understand why I dismiss yours."
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not
entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or
"creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of
time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.
The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance
is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As
Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this
represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we
don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we
know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not
a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation
and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection"
by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of
livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on
the development of any species.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.
Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as
some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an
engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support,
religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls
show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God;
yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This
suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to
religious faith than science is.
6) Atheists are arrogant.
When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into
being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit
it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability
in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of
the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the
frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their
humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and
biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the
nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw
their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual
honesty.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love,
ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek
them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and
unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such
experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed
their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus.
What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention
and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do
the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole
savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists,
Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that
Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose
from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual
experience can authenticate.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human
understanding.
Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way
that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully
understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the
Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not
know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there
might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding
of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely
entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant
extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be
even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.
From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize
the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to
accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to
society.
Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize
that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious
doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and
"self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling
delusion and the truth.
In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In
most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave
well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is
more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or
doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do
it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't
discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are
bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not
get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books
by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in
us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about
the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't
make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both
books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human
being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in
scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom
without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of
the universe.
Letters:
Sam Harris' 10 amendments of alleged myths about atheism are
provocative, but his comments lack intellectual rigor. He deplores
religion's supposed hostility to science and allies science to his own
views. But there is nothing less scientific than Harris' gross
generalizations about both religion and atheism.
Christians are not homogeneous in beliefs and attitudes, nor are other
religious groups. Harris' comments about atheists' views are equally
tenuous. There are no creeds or texts to which atheists give assent.
Rather than a system, atheism is essentially a negative belief. Harris
expresses what one particular atheist believes. It's a giant leap of
faith to accept as anything other than his opinion what he represents as
the views of others who claim that identity.
GT
Pasadena
Harris' essay on atheism was as informative as it was full of his
misunderstanding of Christianity. He stated: "Which is more moral,
helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because
you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it?" The good and
the moral does not result from fear or belief in rewards; feeding the
hungry and giving to the poor is imbued into the nature of one
transformed by Christ.
It just goes to show that self-righteousness is the property of atheists
as well as those who pervert Christianity.
G H. M
Upland
Harris perpetuates the myth that true atheists are perfectly reasonable.
As an ex-atheist, I find most of my former colleagues to be as
unreasonable and militant as any fundamentalist. Their dogma extends far
beyond the issue of whether there is a God into denying anything that is
claimed by some as being supernatural. Atheism is religion by another name.
S S. S
West Hollywood
Harris does not do justice to atheism. Atheists do not deny the
existence of a creator. They simply do not find credible evidence for
such an assumption beyond the emotional need for an explanation. It is
not the denial by atheists but the insecurity of belief that keeps
believers in a constant state of organized defense. If God exists, every
definition agrees that he can take care of himself. The need for
individuals to come to the aid of such a deity denies the power of such
a God.
M K
Margate, Fla.
Harris repeats a common misconception. He evidently believes that
Buddhists are theists. The fact that two Buddhists were elected to
Congress this year shows that the attitudes Harris refers to are very
complex (or maybe the myth that caught him is widespread).
J F
Miami Beach
Harris helps to set the record straight for those who will listen. But
one remaining problem with atheism is its name. Defined in terms of what
it doesn't believe in, atheism inherits all the faults of other negative
definitions. May I suggest "scientific naturalism?" For today's atheists
are thorough-going naturalists who look to modern science for the
content of their worldview. Identifying themselves in that way would
dispense with many of the myths about atheism.
S A
Seal Beach
Robert McGregor
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 06:07:10 GMT, "F.H." <conn...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html
>
> The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion
>
> I'm so optimistic that I expect to live to see the evaporation of the
> powerful mystique of religion.
Ironic how the more fanatical adherents of the Scientismist Religion
have so quickly adapted the old Christian Hymn that was perpetuated for
posterity by Johnny Cash, "In The Sweet Bye And Bye"
Bob
Craig S.
news:gq6mp29relajoa5q8...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 06:07:10 GMT, "F.H." <conn...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html
>
> The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion
>
> in the world-will still cling to their religion with the sort of
> passion that can fuel violence and other intolerant and reprehensible
> behavior. But the rest of the world will see this behavior for what
> it is, and learn to work around it until it subsides, as it surely
> will.
In other words, China will finally be running the whole show.
> Cults will rise and fall, as they do
> today and have done for millennia, but only those that can
> metamorphose into socially benign organizations will be able to
> flourish. Many religions have already made the transition, quietly
> de-emphasizing the irrational elements in their heritages, abandoning
> the xenophobic and sexist prohibitions of their quite recent past, and
> turning their attention from doctrinal purity to moral effectiveness.
I wonder what some examples of this would be?
Craig S.
news:p7cnh.1524$A52...@newsfe02.lga...
> "GaryE" <garye...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gq6mp29relajoa5q8...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 06:07:10 GMT, "F.H." <conn...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html
> > today and have done for millennia, but only those that can
> > metamorphose into socially benign organizations will be able to
> > flourish. Many religions have already made the transition, quietly
> > de-emphasizing the irrational elements in their heritages, abandoning
> > the xenophobic and sexist prohibitions of their quite recent past, and
> > turning their attention from doctrinal purity to moral effectiveness.
>
> I wonder what some examples of this would be?
Still wondering. Anybody? Salvation Army?
F.H.
Gotta think about it a bit but I think the trend to motivation and
achievement would be examples. Some Sunday services sound more like a
motivational seminar. One fairly dogmatic group of Christians just went
against the right leaning leaders and got very much into green, saving
the environment (as God would wish it).
Craig S.
news:bkTnh.635$3h5.521@trnddc01...
One of the quiz questions on 'Whad'Ya Know?' this morning revealed that
overall church attendance increases when drums are added to the service.
Whoda thunk?
F.H.
Tip of the iceberg:
http://www.dicksutphen.com/html/battlemind.html#vibrato
I've met Dick Sutphen and in my book he's a straight up legit guy.
From link:
I could relate many stories that support subliminal programming, but I'd
rather use my time to make you aware of even more subtle uses of such
programming.
I have personally experienced sitting in a Los Angeles auditorium with
over ten thousand people who were gathered to listen to a charismatic
figure. Twenty minutes after entering the auditorium, I became aware
that I was going in and out of an altered state. Those accompanying me
experienced the same thing. Since it is our business, we were aware of
what was happening, but those around us were not. By careful
observation, what appeared to be spontaneous demonstrations were, in
fact, artful manipulations. The only way I could figure how the
eyes-open trance had been induced was to pipe a 6- to 7-cycle-per-second
vibration into the room behind the air conditioner sound. That vibration
generates Alpha, which would render the audience highly susceptible. Ten
to 25 percent of the population is capable of a somnambulistic trance
level. For these people, the suggestions of the speaker could
potentially be accepted as commands.
Craig S.
> http://www.dicksutphen.com/html/battlemind.html#vibrato
> Ten
> to 25 percent of the population is capable of a somnambulistic trance
> level. For these people, the suggestions of the speaker could
> potentially be accepted as commands.
Especially useful when "offering" time comes around.
Robert McGregor
F.H. wrote:
>
> Tip of the iceberg:
> http://www.dicksutphen.com/html/battlemind.html#vibrato
>
> I've met Dick Sutphen and in my book he's a straight up legit guy.
>
A muso friend said the other day that he serendipitously switched back
to a valve amp, and is now getting the sound he wants. He wonders if
that's related to a new wave of audiophiles going from digital to
analogue.
Be interesting if digital era kids dump digital for analogue just so
they can get all warm and fuzzy. An audio ecstasy fix, who'd a thunk it.
F.H.
You gotta stop hangin around with Mark.
Tommy
"F.H." <> observation, what appeared to be spontaneous demonstrations were,
> fact, artful manipulations. The only way I could figure how the
> eyes-open trance had been induced was to pipe a 6- to 7-cycle-per-second
> vibration into the room behind the air conditioner sound. That vibration
> generates Alpha, which would render the audience highly susceptible. Ten
> to 25 percent of the population is capable of a somnambulistic trance
> level. For these people, the suggestions of the speaker could
We have a crowd of born again adventurist (church of Christ the Adventurous)
I think the werent able to spell Adventists, but these are all black as the
ace of spades.
Always without fail, regardless if there is only 3 or 4, or 20 to 30 of them
(African blacks by the way) they shout and scream in rhythm and bang a half
a dozen drums. The look on their faces is unreal..
Yep I believe its the rhythmic incantations okay..
Nothing like hearing, Oh God, Oh God, Oh God ump ahh ump ahh, ump ahh, aww
jaysus now I'm getting horny :-))
Cheers
Tommy
F.H.
> We have a crowd of born again adventurist (church of Christ the Adventurous)
> I think the werent able to spell Adventists, but these are all black as the
> ace of spades.
> Always without fail, regardless if there is only 3 or 4, or 20 to 30 of them
> (African blacks by the way) they shout and scream in rhythm and bang a half
> a dozen drums. The look on their faces is unreal..
> Yep I believe its the rhythmic incantations okay..
Don't need no stinking chemicals to reach an altered state. ;)
> Nothing like hearing, Oh God, Oh God, Oh God ump ahh ump ahh, ump ahh, aww
> jaysus now I'm getting horny :-))
That's funny Tommy. Truth be told (no one likes to delve there) there
is a sexual element to many spiritual/gospel songs.
Virtualoso
> The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion
>
> I’m so optimistic that I expect to live to see the evaporation of the
> powerful mystique of religion. I think that in about twenty-five years
> almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena,
> so much so that in most quarters religion will no longer command the
> awe it does today. Of course many people–perhaps a majority of people
> in the world–will still cling to their religion with the sort of
> passion that can fuel violence and other intolerant and reprehensible
> behavior.
Imagine our relief to realize that's all well underway:
Virtualoso
HailAyeYouYup, brother! Keep the faith!
Virtualoso
<cspurlockt...@takethisoutmtneer.net> said:
>> Cults will rise and fall, as they do
>> today and have done for millennia, but only those that can
>> metamorphose into socially benign organizations will be able to
>> flourish. Many religions have already made the transition, quietly
>> de-emphasizing the irrational elements in their heritages, abandoning
>> the xenophobic and sexist prohibitions of their quite recent past, and
>> turning their attention from doctrinal purity to moral effectiveness.
>
> I wonder what some examples of this would be?
Shamanic Psychotherapy?
Virtualoso
Try a sunny Sunday morn at, say, a Unitarian gig. Praying for Divine
Abundane, Holy Affluence. Gold Plated God's Will and the Bill Gates to
Heaven on Earth, Etc.
Virtualoso
> I've met Dick Sutphen and in my book he's a straight up legit guy.
"One quarter Native American, she draws upon her roots to specialize in
Shamanistic and occult techniques such as leading vision quests,
automatic writing, palmistry, and astrology. ... Dick & Tara conduct
seminars and workshops all over the world. Over 175,000 people have
attended a psychic, reincarnation or healing Sutphen Seminar, workshop,
or retreat."
Uh... straight up... what?
F.H.
> On 2007-01-06 13:11:14 -0800, "F.H." <conn...@verizon.net> said:
>
>> I've met Dick Sutphen and in my book he's a straight up legit guy.
>
> "One quarter Native American, she draws upon her roots to specialize in
> Shamanistic and occult techniques such as leading vision quests,
> automatic writing, palmistry, and astrology. ...
That's the she not the he. ;)
> Dick & Tara conduct seminars and workshops all over the world. Over
> 175,000 people have attended a psychic, reincarnation or healing Sutphen
> Seminar, workshop, or retreat."
I did the Bushido thing. Interesting. Early 80's while still fairly
functional. Liked most of it but as always, couldn't make the big leap
required in most belief systems, in this case, reincarnation).
> Uh... straight up... what?
Honest. Like you. ;)
F.H.
From link:
"Some will argue that with this trend comes a healthy expansion of the
scope and effectiveness of psychological practice (not to mention its
market) as it moves to include issues of meaning, value, justice, and
soulfulness. Although this debatably may be true, it is undeniably true
that with this shift come all the bad things about a religion; its
imposed morality, its bigotry, and its demand for conformity within the
garb of justice and salvation. It creates its "sacred cows" immune from
criticism, and its "straw men" set up only to be easily confuted. [end
quote]
How else could it be? Care to sing along?:
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
I've got a dance, I ain't got no steps, no
I'm gonna let the music move me around
I've got a dance, I ain't got no steps
I'm gonna let the music move me around
Craig S.
news:2007011602384177923-uhuh@notcom...
> Try a sunny Sunday morn at, say, a Unitarian gig. Praying for Divine
> Abundane, Holy Affluence. Gold Plated God's Will and the Bill Gates to
> Heaven on Earth, Etc.
I attended Unitarian services here for a while. I knew the lady minister
from way back. At that time, they were meeting at the local synagogue -
each meager group helping the other make ends meet I suppose. The service
format was very similar to Christian ones, except the congregation was about
half gay and half granola groupie with a good cross-section belonging to
both categories and a smattering of assorted flakes thrown in for good
measure. Since I wasn't gay or a tree-hugger and rate myself fairly low on
the flake quotient, I didn't feel like I fit in very well. People were
friendly and I tried to keep an open mind, but decided it wasn't for me
after a couple months.
The local congregation has faced some scandal in recent years:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882578,00.html
F.H.
> "Virtualoso" <uh...@not.com> wrote in message
> news:2007011602384177923-uhuh@notcom...
>
>> Try a sunny Sunday morn at, say, a Unitarian gig. Praying for Divine
>> Abundane, Holy Affluence. Gold Plated God's Will and the Bill Gates to
>> Heaven on Earth, Etc.
>
> I attended Unitarian services here for a while. I knew the lady minister
> from way back. At that time, they were meeting at the local synagogue -
> each meager group helping the other make ends meet I suppose. The service
> format was very similar to Christian ones, except the congregation was about
> half gay and half granola groupie with a good cross-section belonging to
> both categories and a smattering of assorted flakes thrown in for good
> measure.
> Since I wasn't gay or a tree-hugger and rate myself fairly low on
> the flake quotient, I didn't feel like I fit in very well.
Mark and I will decide the flake quotient.
Craig S.
Craig S.
> Mark and I will decide the flake quotient.
That only makes sense.
F.H.
I think we will be forever trying to make sense out of being here with
an exit ticket that *has* to be punched one day. Many theories have
come and gone and no doubt will recycle again. Endless recycling part
of the deal? That pesky need to believe keeps the engine running.
Sunrise, sunset, nature. Campbell nailed it IMO, but its easier
understood than done: "One can experience an unconditional affirmation
of life only when one has accepted death, not as contrary to life, but
as an aspect of life." Heh.
I think the following description of Campbell's work touches on the
current discussion pretty clearly:
We ask many questions, but if we keep pushing them back, we ultimately
get to"Who are we and what are we doing here?" In the past, religion
addressed this question through the direct symbolic power of the image:
the shamanic power animal, the Buddhist wheel of life, the Hindu
mandala, the Christian crucifix. More recently, however, religion has
turned from the image to theology and moral proscriptions. In our
culture, religion has lost much of its power and has been replaced by
the social sciences and the arts and humanities, both of which seek to
understand human nature, but by different methods.
The social sciences (psychology, sociology, political science,
economics) attempt to emulate the natural sciences (physics, chemistry,
biology) and look for timeless laws and cause-and-effect relationships.
Perhaps these methods are not appropriate for dealing with human nature.
Many question the success of the social sciences.
In contrast, the arts and humanities (painting, sculpture, music,
literature, philosophy, cultural history) build on history and the
observations of past cultures. For example, in order to understand
Picasso and his explorations of the human being, we must be aware of
Cezanne, Leonardo, Greek art, African art. This form of knowledge roots
itself in the past and in human culture rather than attempting to build
a body of knowledge independent of time. The study of myths, as pursued
by Joseph Campbell, similarly roots itself in the past and, as a result,
is perhaps better able than the social sciences to tell us about the
meanings of our lives.
Two Generators of Westem Thought: Descartes and Vico
The social sciences grew out of a branch of Western thought which
developed during the Renaissance and which received its formal
philosophical footings in the work of Rene Descartes (1596-1650).
Descartes attempted to extend mathematical methods to all fields of
human knowledge, thereby rationalizing experience and trivializing
history and culture. Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) rejected Descartes'
rationalism and with it the notion of one fixed human nature. For Vico,
history was central, with each period having its own patterns of
meaning, discernible through the study of its language and myths.
The views of these two generators of Western thought, Descartes and
Vico, are still in conflict today. Descartes dominates, but there is a
surge in Vico's approach as we begin to realize the inability of the
social sciences to tell us anything about the meanings underlying our
individual and collective lives. Following in Vico's tradition, Oswald
Spengler (1880-1936) illuminates meaning in history, and Carl Jung
(1875-1961) illuminates it in the psyche. In mythology, it is Joseph
Campbell who most clearly addresses the issues of individual and
collective meaning. And since Campbell sees mythology broadly,
encompassing not only legends and fairy tales, but also religion, art
and literature, he illuminates a large part of our lives.
Four Functions of Myth
For Campbell, there are four great functions of myth. The first is to
awaken and maintain a sense of wonder of the whole mystery of the
universe in our waking consciousness. The second is to provide a map or
picture of the universe and of our relationship to it. The third is to
validate and maintain the moral systems and life-customs of a particular
culture. And the fourth function is psychological, aiding the individual
in passage through life's stages, from the dependency of childhood to
the responsibilities of maturity, to old age and the transition through
death.
Campbell's method in mythology is the study of thousands of myths and
mythological traditions, and the deduction of general principles. In so
doing, he maps the realms of meaning which are the fields of potential
in which our lives move.
Thus for Campbell, mythology becomes a suprapsychology, a system of
principles describing the nature and workings of being, the universe,
society, and individual development. Embedded in myths, fairy tales,
theologies, art, and science are the accumulated wisdoms of cultures and
individuals, available to us like words in a book if we know the codes
for deciphering them. Cracking the codes has been Joseph Campbell's
lifelong career.
Virtualoso
wrote:
> Virtualoso wrote:
> > On 2007-01-06 13:11:14 -0800, "F.H." <conn...@verizon.net> said:
> >
> >> I've met Dick Sutphen and in my book he's a straight up legit guy.
> >
> > "One quarter Native American, she draws upon her roots to specialize in
> > Shamanistic and occult techniques such as leading vision quests,
> > automatic writing, palmistry, and astrology. ...
>
> That's the she not the he. ;)
We're gonna' try to pin it all on the l'il lady now, are we?
> > Dick & Tara conduct seminars and workshops all over the world. Over
> > 175,000 people have attended a psychic, reincarnation or healing Sutphen
> > Seminar, workshop, or retreat."
>
> I did the Bushido thing. Interesting. Early 80's while still fairly
> functional. Liked most of it but as always, couldn't make the big leap
> required in most belief systems, in this case, reincarnation).
No prob. We just install some false memories and you'll never know the
difference!
> > Uh... straight up... what?
>
> Honest. Like you. ;)
You're a tricky debbil. Bushido, indeed.
Virtualoso
<cspurlockt...@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote:
> "Virtualoso" <uh...@not.com> wrote in message
> news:2007011602384177923-uhuh@notcom...
>
> > Try a sunny Sunday morn at, say, a Unitarian gig. Praying for Divine
> > Abundane, Holy Affluence. Gold Plated God's Will and the Bill Gates to
> > Heaven on Earth, Etc.
>
> I attended Unitarian services here for a while. I knew the lady minister
> from way back. At that time, they were meeting at the local synagogue -
> each meager group helping the other make ends meet I suppose. The service
> format was very similar to Christian ones, except the congregation was about
> half gay and half granola groupie with a good cross-section belonging to
> both categories and a smattering of assorted flakes thrown in for good
> measure. Since I wasn't gay or a tree-hugger and rate myself fairly low on
> the flake quotient, I didn't feel like I fit in very well. People were
> friendly and I tried to keep an open mind, but decided it wasn't for me
> after a couple months.
Geeez... I forgot where you live. And they say CA is nutty.
Virtualoso
<cspurlockt...@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote:
Coward. Take a tour of the Mother Ship:
Virtualoso
wrote:
> Craig S. wrote:
> > "Virtualoso" <uh...@not.com> wrote in message
> > news:2007011602362350878-uhuh@notcom...
> >> On 2007-01-04 10:47:55 -0800, "Craig S."
> >> <cspurlockt...@takethisoutmtneer.net> said:
> >>
> >>>> Cults will rise and fall, as they do
> >>>> today and have done for millennia, but only those that can
> >>>> metamorphose into socially benign organizations will be able to
> >>>> flourish. Many religions have already made the transition, quietly
> >>>> de-emphasizing the irrational elements in their heritages, abandoning
> >>>> the xenophobic and sexist prohibitions of their quite recent past, and
> >>>> turning their attention from doctrinal purity to moral effectiveness.
> >>> I wonder what some examples of this would be?
> >> Shamanic Psychotherapy?
> >
> > Like this?:
> > http://www.lcclightingtheway.com
> ... That pesky need to believe keeps the engine running.
> ...I think the following description of Campbell's work touches on the
> current discussion pretty clearly:
For any that might be inclined to... well, believe... Mythter Campbell,
that is. Yeth thureee
'-)
F.H.
Hahaha, We (my family of origin) were rediscovered by another wing of
the Thomas clan a couple years ago. Yesterday I found out that prior to
coming to America we lived in Wales, (Neath). Coal miners apparently,
there and here. So....., maybe there's something to that past life
regression where I thought I recognized Tommy. ;)
F.H.
I think I recognize that slur. Kalonipin?
Virtualoso
wrote:
Here's a possibly curious thing, although admittedly I've still never
actually done the math:
Roughly half the humans that have ever been alive... are alive right
now. If we've all reincarnated through some number of those previous
versions, and we run that back through however many iterations it might
take to boil down to the root set, then how many actual, discrete
different souls could there be? And, since it (presumably) takes one
per living body, then who are all these newcomers now and who sent 'em?
If the original cast and crew calculates down to 166,000 I'm going to
start freaking out, okay?
But then, I got stuck at the part where Adam and Eve had two sons, that
then married... who? AND "there were giants in those days". ????????
You can see why I end up at places like Unitarian sessions and quirky
zendos. Let's just hope I never get outright caught and drugged.
Kai Ruuska
Expert evaluation.
--
Kai
Tommy
"F.H." <>
> Hahaha, We (my family of origin) were rediscovered by another wing of
> the Thomas clan a couple years ago. Yesterday I found out that prior
> to
> coming to America we lived in Wales, (Neath). Coal miners
> apparently,
> there and here. So....., maybe there's something to that past life
> regression where I thought I recognized Tommy. ;)
You was robbed Frank..
Wales as you probably have forgotten in the midst or mist of time is
actually in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. They even have their
own language.
And as for coal miners, I spit on them. Underground, yechhh.
Our Noble and Royal blood would prevent us from mixing with peasantry.
Cheers
Tommy
F.H.
I know all that shit. Thomas is an English sir name. It was a yoke
about proximity. Who knows who went where a couple hundred years ago?
Spare me the "Noble, Royal" BS ya friggin descendant of a potato farmer
with no potatoes.
Tommy
> Tommy wrote:
>>
>> "F.H." <>
>>> Hahaha, We (my family of origin) were rediscovered by another wing
>>> of the Thomas clan a couple years ago. Yesterday I found out that
>>> prior to coming to America we lived in Wales, (Neath). Coal miners
>>> apparently, there and here. So....., maybe there's something to
>>> that past life regression where I thought I recognized Tommy. ;)
>>
>> You was robbed Frank..
> I know all that shit. Thomas is an English sir name. It was a yoke
> about proximity. Who knows who went where a couple hundred years
> ago?
> Spare me the "Noble, Royal" BS ya friggin descendant of a potato
> farmer with no potatoes.
It is actually an English surname - a Sir is Knighted..
If you want to take cheap shots at my heritage, go ahead - it reduces
any argument you might like to make to selfish narcissistic ignorance..
Our lineage is over 800 years traceable. By all means there are little
'burps' along the way. The Romans stopped when they reached
impenetrable forestry. Ohh and they didn't stand up too well to the
inclement climate. Short skirts and sandals aren't what is recommended
for a sojourn in the high countries...
I'm afraid the potato farming ahh 'insult? is a throwback to your lack
of education. Why do foreigners insist on showing up your lack of
knowledge in worldly matters??
A good resentment is a sort of a penance we bestow on those we frown
down on.
You aren't holding a resntment Frank, are you.. Don't...,,, it is
not worth a second of your life. I always try to allow for
misunderstandings - a lack or a forgetful smiley - the weak mind of the
'perceptor' - or some people are just meant to not agree on several
things :*)
I'm sure if you were to question others of noble rearing, you'd find
that we really don't have harmful intent... A lot of times its your
very own perception of what you thought you wanted to understand.
JMHO
Cheers
Tommy
imbibe@mindspring.com (David P.)
Tommy wrote:
>
> Our lineage is over 800 years traceable.
Try looking at the big picture, instead of
just one little group's peckerdildoes!
.
.
--
Tommy
This is the big picture mate.
Did you know that the Swedish and the Irish are the only bloodlines
that are geneticall pure. Sorry they were genetically pure traceable
for the past 800 years.
For the life of me I can't remember the reason why 800 years is the
outer ranged figure.
I have this thing for Swedish Blonde women, especially the non-dyed
ones :-)
F.H.
> F.H. wrote:
>> I know all that shit. Thomas is an English sir name. It was a yoke
>> about proximity. Who knows who went where a couple hundred years ago?
>> Spare me the "Noble, Royal" BS ya friggin descendant of a potato
>> farmer with no potatoes.
>
> It is actually an English surname - a Sir is Knighted..
Take a bow.
> If you want to take cheap shots at my heritage, go ahead - it reduces
> any argument you might like to make to selfish narcissistic ignorance..
Same for you taking it seriously.
> Our lineage is over 800 years traceable. By all means there are little
> 'burps' along the way. The Romans stopped when they reached
> impenetrable forestry. Ohh and they didn't stand up too well to the
> inclement climate. Short skirts and sandals aren't what is recommended
> for a sojourn in the high countries...
Now that we have the Internet (thanks Al) you can retire from teaching
history. ;)
> I'm afraid the potato farming ahh 'insult? is a throwback to your lack
> of education. Why do foreigners insist on showing up your lack of
> knowledge in worldly matters??
See above oh humor impaired one.
> A good resentment is a sort of a penance we bestow on those we frown
> down on.
We? I though *you* went a tad further. <wink>
> You aren't holding a resntment Frank, are you.. Don't...,,, it is not
> worth a second of your life. I always try to allow for
> misunderstandings - a lack or a forgetful smiley - the weak mind of the
> 'perceptor' - or some people are just meant to not agree on several
> things :*)
Maybe if we got to know each other I wouldn't have to be so precise. ;)
> I'm sure if you were to question others of noble rearing, you'd find
> that we really don't have harmful intent...
We? Oh, like you and the Bushies?
F.H.
> imb...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>>>
>>> Our lineage is over 800 years traceable.
>>
>> Try looking at the big picture, instead of
>> just one little group's peckerdildoes!
>
> This is the big picture mate.
>
> Did you know that the Swedish and the Irish are the only bloodlines that
> are geneticall pure. Sorry they were genetically pure traceable for the
> past 800 years.
This explains a lot. Jest call you redneck. ;) ;)
Did you know that the limited gene-pool caused by continued inbreeding
means that deleterious genes become widespread?
Virtualoso
wrote:
Peat moss gathers no stones unturned. Or something like that.
Virtualoso
wrote:
Genetic purity? Now where have I heard anything like that before?
Virtualoso
wrote:
> Tommy wrote:
> > imb...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> Tommy wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Our lineage is over 800 years traceable.
> >>
> >> Try looking at the big picture, instead of
> >> just one little group's peckerdildoes!
> >
> > This is the big picture mate.
> >
> > Did you know that the Swedish and the Irish are the only bloodlines that
> > are geneticall pure. Sorry they were genetically pure traceable for the
> > past 800 years.
>
> This explains a lot. Jest call you redneck. ;) ;)
Man, you are a nationalist. They don't have rednecks over there.
> Did you know that the limited gene-pool caused by continued inbreeding
> means that deleterious genes become widespread?
But they all get along in the pubs so well!
sharx35
"Tommy" <tommylee...@geeup.com> wrote in message
news:eoos2m$u3t$1...@aioe.org...
Tommy must be on one of his bipolar swings.
>
>
sharx35
> imb...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>>>
>>> Our lineage is over 800 years traceable.
>>
>> Try looking at the big picture, instead of
>> just one little group's peckerdildoes!
>
> This is the big picture mate.
>
> Did you know that the Swedish and the Irish are the only bloodlines that
> are geneticall pure. Sorry they were genetically pure traceable for the
> past 800 years.
>
Not sure about the Swedes but no one else wanting to fuck them would explain
the alleged purity of the Irish.
> For the life of me I can't remember the reason why 800 years is the outer
> ranged figure.
>
> I have this thing for Swedish Blonde women, especially the non-dyed ones
> :-)
THAT really makes you unique!! (sarcasm switch now off)
>
>
Tommy
> Tommy wrote:
> Maybe if we got to know each other I wouldn't have to be so precise.
> ;)
Well I did mention the bit about smileys #may# be forgotten..to be
entered. Shheesh thats brutal grammar, but I'm on a roll.
>> I'm sure if you were to question others of noble rearing, you'd find
>> that we really don't have harmful intent...
>
> We? Oh, like you and the Bushies?
You had to bring them into it. They are lowborn as you very well know.
Jesus, its obvious looking at them that they are interbred.
I remeber asking someone if Jowels was properly spelled. I think its
jowls. Seriously I learned to read at 3 and you can ask me mother - I
was going to school at 2and a half, because my brother was in high
babies and my mum worked in the school, so I was a little bit special
:-)
2 things I picked up without effort, was spelling and mental
arithmetic. I failed on several fronts because I don't need a pen and
paper, so never showed how I worked out the answer to 'sums' . Later
on I used equations and formulae - couldn't be bothered working out the
answer, it was the formula you see. To prove that I knew how to do it
was more important than actually physically doing it. Which was fine
in senior classes with the 'Master' - the science teacher. I was
delicate, and my brother was my minder, I was always a class behind him
because of age, but a year ahead of him, cos he played outdoors and
poor widdle me stayed and studied. Nerd??
Anyway, I am now healthy and wise. And he who never drank that much is
not all that great healthwise.
I think I stowed away the brains while I wasn't using them, so's the
alcoholc couldn't burn them, if you see what I mean. To this day, I
still do a cryptic crossword most every day - love soduku puzzles, and
brain teasers, but bedamned if I can remember a birthday or an
appointment.
I think thats a reason why I can sit at a committee table, have blue
murder with a fellow - or girl, and walk away as if nothing has
happened. Likewise internet. I've walked over to people I fell out
with and without remembering the where or the why, I've shook hands and
asked them how they are.. a sort of a boinnnggg moment when they look
at me, Shite an damnation life is far too short for them carry ons.
Gimme a good mudwrestle any day of the week, and then a suana
afterwards :-)
Cheers
Tommy
Tommy
> Did you know that the limited gene-pool caused by continued
> inbreeding
> means that deleterious genes become widespread?
I figure and think about this Frank,, Why didn't the british just
annihilate us, it isn't because they couldn't or hadn't the manpower.
And it wasn't because the US liked us better or at all. hell this was
in the 15 and 16,17 century. It is because they are descended from us,
or from the same familial forest, although not the same tree. So they
kept us to help purify their bloodlines now and agin. And of course to
help to hybridise ours.
Seriously there's little DNA differences between us and the English,
less with the Welsh, and strangely enough there's a vast difference
with the Scots.
I believe I am a nicely bred Stallion - a gigolo for the British Crown
hahaha
I would probably have been chosen eventually for one of the young
princesses :-)) But too late now.
Cheers
Tommy
Tommy
>> that are geneticall pure. Sorry they were genetically pure
>> traceable
>> for the past 800 years.
>>
>> For the life of me I can't remember the reason why 800 years is the
>> outer ranged figure.
>>
>> I have this thing for Swedish Blonde women, especially the non-dyed
>> ones :-)
> Genetic purity? Now where have I heard anything like that before?
Perception is everything - isn;t it?
Maybe the alcohol has destroyed the bits of the brain that can
distinguish between a true physiological fact and the perceptions that
you have that I am in any way promoting something, as you seem to imply
in your rather ambiguously worded inquiry up there....
Please elucidate. I can either reply, or explain and set you right.
Of course that is if you want or need 'setting right' about what I
meant and not just passremarking without the need for reply.
Cheers
Tommy
F.H.
> F.H. wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>>> imb...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> This explains a lot. Jest call you redneck. ;) ;)
>> Did you know that the limited gene-pool caused by continued inbreeding
>> means that deleterious genes become widespread?
>
> I figure and think about this Frank,, Why didn't the british just
> annihilate us, it isn't because they couldn't or hadn't the manpower.
> And it wasn't because the US liked us better or at all. hell this was
> in the 15 and 16,17 century. It is because they are descended from us,
> or from the same familial forest, although not the same tree. So they
> kept us to help purify their bloodlines now and agin. And of course to
> help to hybridise ours.
>
> Seriously there's little DNA differences between us and the English,
> less with the Welsh, and strangely enough there's a vast difference with
> the Scots.
Well hell, that's where we started this brouhaha. From now on you can
call me Sur Frank. :)
Chronocidal Charlie
Hash: SHA1
Tommy wrote:
> F.H. wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>>> imb...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> This explains a lot. Jest call you redneck. ;) ;)
>> Did you know that the limited gene-pool caused by continued inbreeding
>> means that deleterious genes become widespread?
>
> I figure and think about this Frank,, Why didn't the british just
> annihilate us, it isn't because they couldn't or hadn't the manpower.
> And it wasn't because the US liked us better or at all. hell this was
> in the 15 and 16,17 century. It is because they are descended from us,
> or from the same familial forest, although not the same tree. So they
> kept us to help purify their bloodlines now and agin. And of course to
> help to hybridise ours.
>
> Seriously there's little DNA differences between us and the English,
> less with the Welsh, and strangely enough there's a vast difference with
> the Scots.
Aye, but fer all our clannishness and kiltishness US Scots-Irish dipped
our wicks well and got and left shards and strands of DNA all over the
world. But we like granite in thet we gots a claustic element what
binds. I sure be looking forward to the Gathering down Salado 'bout
twenty mile down the way cum November again this year. ;-)
http://www.ctam-salado.org/Gathering/Gathering.htm
Regnu sum old bonds 'nd ties and get in touch wiff the roots 'nd well
spring. Yeah. ;-)
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFsWy0ww7yUZHgY/wRAgW+AJ99mzXysHNdY/z4sz+otJ0+xtYISACgsUAz
wvzJBGnsbikDHTACox1FyDo=
=hEVv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
F.H.
Heh, very interesting.
Virtualoso
wrote:
> F.H. wrote:
> > Tommy wrote:
> >> imb...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > This explains a lot. Jest call you redneck. ;) ;)
> > Did you know that the limited gene-pool caused by continued
> > inbreeding
> > means that deleterious genes become widespread?
>
> I figure and think about this Frank,, Why didn't the british just
> annihilate us, it isn't because they couldn't or hadn't the manpower.
> And it wasn't because the US liked us better or at all. hell this was
> in the 15 and 16,17 century.
Tommy: just WHO have the British EVER annihilated completely? You don't
understand domination.
> It is because they are descended from us,
> or from the same familial forest, although not the same tree. So they
> kept us to help purify their bloodlines now and agin. And of course to
> help to hybridise ours.
Oh man, is *this* what the Irish tell themselves? Along with that
woeful inablility to grasp the fundamentals of power and control, no
*wonder* ya' got such a tiny scene there, mostly only among yourselves.
> Seriously there's little DNA differences between us and the English,
> less with the Welsh, and strangely enough there's a vast difference
> with the Scots.
>
> I believe I am a nicely bred Stallion - a gigolo for the British Crown
> hahaha
> I would probably have been chosen eventually for one of the young
> princesses :-)) But too late now.
Sorry, bub, we're ALL only about 1% DNA off from chimps.