Religious Rhetoric: Obama Tones It Down, And Chief Justice Roberts Bungles Secular Oath

Timmy,

You:
"Do you love animals?
I do. All of them."

I don't. I love my cats, but not their fleas. I hate the stray tom that sprays on the doorstep. Since I've never encountered any, I cannot say I love lemurs, or stag beetles. I love magpies, even though they swoop with intent to peck if I stray near their nest full of young. So, case by case basis.

You:
"I think it is disingenuous for you to assume that when I say that I love all humans as I love all living things, that I meant that I love all personalities. It's like you completely missed the second half of that sentence "as I love all living things"."

Whoa! All these distinctions, meant and missed! Look, in actual practice, I don't distinguish personality from essence, and like from love so definitely as you. Your statements appeared pretty categorical to me. Not used to you doing *nuance*. And using the *love for animals* as an analogy for a general *love for humans* (exclusive of personality and liking) seems to me somewhat far-fetched.

You might be able to *love the sinner and hate the sin*, as it were (no religious subtext, just figure of speech). Me, I hate the *sinner*. No sinner; no sin - know what I'm saying?

You:
"My love for all humans is more like my love for flora, fauna, and even family love, (seeing all humans as one family) and not so much like girlfriend and friend love.
As I said, I think that most people share this kind of love for all humans. I think that you do too."

Given that I hate a fair few things, and people (not just their *personalities*), I don't think I can own this kind attribution of yours. That's one reason why Jesus ain't for me. I reserve the right to loathe deeply.

You:
"I don't have any kids. And yet I care about global warming deeply. Why should I? I'll be gone before it all goes too nasty."

I do have kids, school-age. And, though I value your altruism, such goodwill won't save the world for them. If only feelings could heal! That *nasty* future shadows every day.

Clearly, to you universal love and hope is the default setting of the human heart; and evil is the viral interloper, carried by memes of irrationality like religion. You, then, are at heart an optimist about human nature.

To me, evil is the default setting of the human heart; and goodness is a glimmer of otherness that shines unaccountably and irrepressibly through the wreck of human affairs. I am, admittedly, a misanthrope, though not entirely bereft of hope.

You:
"Let it go dude. It's beneath you. Stop obsessing with me. It is unbecoming."

Obsessing. No, just pea-shooting. Yes, you're right, it is unbecoming. My specialty :)

btw, I do not hate you - personality or essence.

Onofrio,

Do you love animals?

I do. All of them.

I love all humans in the same way.
"Like" is another matter as Thomas says. That is about personality.

I think it is disingenuous for you to assume that when I say that I love all humans as I love all living things, that I meant that I love all personalities. It's like you completely missed the second half of that sentence "as I love all living things". There are different kinds of love. There is girlfriend love, friend love (usually as a result of strong "like") family love (not always accompanied by like) Love for animals and trees etc.

My love for all humans is more like my love for flora, fauna, and even family love, (seeing all humans as one family) and not so much like girlfriend and friend love.

As I said, I think that most people share this kind of love for all humans. I think that you do too.
I don't have any kids. And yet I care about global warming deeply. Why should I? I'll be gone before it all goes too nasty. It's because I care deeply for humanity, my family. That is also why the religion issue is a very big deal to me. It causes so much horror. I don't like what it does to my family. It divides us. Spirituality does not. But religion does.

Given my initial statement to Thomas Baum, "I love all humans as I love all living things", I think the fact that I needed to defend myself for that statement by explaining the above to you, shows the PREjudice that you must have towards me. Give it up. Let it go. Robespierre, Calvin, Lama, Blah Blah Blah. Let it go dude. It's beneath you. Stop obsessing with me. It is unbecoming.

Timmy,

You to me:
"Do you not love all humans and living things?"

I cannot say I love all beings that I have never encountered. There are billions of these. Odds are I'd be unable to love at least one of them.

You:
"It would be sad if you didn't."

Timmy, I would be lying or just plain presumptuous if I said I did. Sad, perhaps, but honest.

What's sadder, honest self-doubt, or claiming something that no human being has ever been able to demonstrate? Love is as love does.

You:
"I just would not understand you as a human being if you didn't feel that way."

There will be a hell of a lot of people you won't understand then, Timmy.

Anyway, I might *feel* like I love the whole world, but that signifies nothing by itself. Certain drugs can induce that *feeling*. So what? Love is as love does, not just as love *feels*.

You:
"I assume that most people do."

I don't believe you're that naive, Timmy. Or, if you are, then perhaps we've discovered the limits of your reason.

Thomas,

YOU WROTE: I am not blaming anyone for anything, you are.

No actually. I take full responsibility for my actions and believe that others should take responsibility for theirs. But that's because I don't believe in God. All atheists take responsibility for their own actions. But if I am to entertain the posit that God actually exists, and that he created us, then it instantly comes to reason that he would have to be to blame for our flaws given that he created us.

YOU: We have free will, you make your choices, I make my choices, that is what free will is.

Yes Thomas I get this. I am responsible for my own choices. I'm asking you why you think you make bad choices when you do? When you make a bad choice, or a bad decision, and you realize that you have done so afterwards, do you not ever try and analyze yourself and and ask yourself, "hey why did I do that?". I think we all do that, so that we can try to avoid making the same mistake again. You don't do that?

YOU: When I have done wrong, I accept that I am the one who did wrong, I do not blame others.

As I told you. Neither do I. But I try to analyze myself when I make those mistakes to try and find out why I made that mistake, so that I might try to not make it again. Do you not do this?

TIMMY2

I am not blaming anyone for anything, you are. We have free will, you make your choices, I make my choices, that is what free will is.

When I have done wrong, I accept that I am the one who did wrong, I do not blame others.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas,

YOU: "Jesus said we are to love, He did not say that we had to like. There is a difference, a big difference, and some get the two confused"

I am not one of those people. I understand the difference.

Thomas, I'm disappointed that you chose not to answer my question about why we make bad decisions. It's an important question. I fully understand your difficulty in answering it. It really does lead back to God's faulty creation, by your theory of God having created everything, and there is no avoiding it. If you can not answer that question properly, you can not blame us for our faults. For being ingrates, selfish, arrogant, violent etc. Why are we that way Thomas? Think about it.

TIMMY2

Did you ever read that article about John Lennon?

Jesus said we are to love, He did not say that we had to like. There is a difference, a big difference, and some get the two confused.

That is one of the reasons that I could never consider Love as a tool.

As far as being delusional, just because one person or more than one person thinks that many, many members of the human race are delusional, does not mean that they know what they are talking about, especially since it is only their opinion.

Nine years ago yesterday, God the Father came into my heart, nine years ago today, God the Holy Spirit came into my body and revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, there is the Trinity.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Oh no Frio,

YOU: Going all contextual now, eh?

Contextual?
Your accusation was that I was expecting Thomas and others to read into my posts in general my love for all things living, when in fact my comment to him was with regards to my having said those words specifically to him in several posts. That's not me being contextual, that's you butting in on a conversation without knowing what you're talking about, and me pointing out that your post was moot because it was based on an ignorant assumption you made that was entirely false.

YOU: You tweak your universal love into *tough love* like that of a parent with naughty children, to allow for the bluster. Or is that clear reading of your statements another *strawman*?

No that's not a straw man. It's just missing the point.

YOU: So you're in the role of the loving parent, and those whose beliefs you refute so...rigorously...are like ill-behaved but cherished minors. You're yelling at them in righteous indignation, for their "own good".

Nah. I just used parents to point out that tough love is a reality that everyone uses. Telling a friend that they are being a fool in a certain situation to save them further embarrassment or worse, getting thrown in jail, or drunk driving, and so you admonish them, perhaps even yell at them, that not only are they going to kill themselves, but they might kill others too. And with humanity in general, you speak your mind in public forums and call delusion for what it is for the good of humanity.

YOU: "Your own metaphors betray you again, Timmy. You ain't nobody's daddy here. I know, you didn't say those very words. But it's strongly implied"

No, Onofrio, my metaphors don't betray me. You just purposely take them literally even though you just admitted that you know they are metaphors, so you can argue against a ridiculous position instead of my legitimate one. But that's what you do. "Women = dogs" That is just too darn easy to argue. You always go for the easiest argument you can find even if you have to make it up. "Robespierre" for example. Who can't make an argument against Robespierre. That's too easy. So you imply erroneously that I am Robespierre or Calvin so you can make the easiest argument in the world, whilst distracting from my actual argument for which you have no actual argument. It's what you do. It's all you got.

YOU: So, nice attempt to shuffle away from your clear claim of love for all.

Do you not love all humans and living things?
It would be sad if you didn't. I just would not understand you as a human being if you didn't feel that way. I assume that most people do. I'm sorry to hear that you think that it is some special extraordinary quality in a person that I am claiming to have, rather than a common quality that is in most of us.

Daniel12,
If you are still reading this, you might find this interesting:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/uoa-ltf100606.php

You are not the only one who's been cured of alcohol addiction by a single dose of LSD.

Regards,
AThagoras

Daniel12,
Susan does have a new thread, but it's different from the subject the others are opining on, so is a little more difficult to find.

It's quite contentious - over 200 posts already. That's where you will find Farnaz. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2009/01/dubious_lessons_of_the_holocau.html

I'm staying out of it. It's been relentlessly on topic so far, and it's not an area where I claim any sort of expertise.

As for your mystical experience, LSD would go a long way toward explaining that. Drugs prevent your brain from working the way its meant to, so I'd hardly consider anything that happened under their influence something to hang your hat on.

Timmy,

You:
"You are the straw man king. Onofrio, here is your strawmen and prejudice from your most recent post."

Not strawmen, Timmy. Ridicule. Pillory. Pea-shooting.

"You haven't been paying attention either."

Going all contextual now, eh?

And bringing Farnaz into this is just clutching at straws, Timmy. Nothing to do with her. She never claimed to love all humanity and all living things, nor have I. You have, without qualification.

Now you backpedal, qualify, point the finger, flail about. You tweak your universal love into *tough love*, like that of a parent with naughty children, to allow for the bluster. Or is that clear reading of your statements another *strawman*?

So you're in the role of the loving parent, and those whose beliefs you refute so...rigorously...are like ill-behaved but cherished minors. You're yelling at them in righteous indignation, for their "own good".

Your own metaphors betray you again, Timmy. You ain't nobody's daddy here. I know, you didn't say those very words. But it's strongly implied.

So, nice attempt to shuffle away from your clear claim of love for all, even heavenly-father-like *tough* love. You're still braying *hubris* loud and clear.

Oh no Frio,

YOU: Said again: you invite Thomas/other readers to notice the universal love for all beings transparently present in your posts. Claiming such virtue for yourself, and assuming it will be obvious to others, is either typical Timmy bluster, or hubris of the most epic order.

Silly Onofrio. You haven't been paying attention either. My coment to Thomas that "he should know" was in direct reference to my stating it in as many words directly to Thomas in several posts between us over the weeks. I have told him several times straight up that "I love all human beings as I love all living things". I did not expect him or anyone else to read that into my posts except the one's where I said it specifically.

YOU: Reiterating your usual *strawman* spiel about me doesn't count here. Judice. A fair cop. And not a strawman in sight.

It's not spiel. You are the straw man king. Onofrio, here is your strawmen and prejudice from your most recent post.

"The Timmy Lama! Avalokiteshvara!"
"Here was I thinking his posts were full of hectoring, overbearing, domineering, browbeating, opinionated, triumphal-galumphal invective"

None of that is true.
Lama? Avalokiteshvara? Strawmen.
Overbearing domineering, browbeating, opinionated, triumphal-galumphal invective?

I'll give you opinionated but the rest is all just your prejudiced opinion. How do I know that you are prejudiced? Because your girlfriend Farnaz is actually all of these things in her race card throwing ways and demands for WAPO to ask her questions that speak her "truth to power" and calling Susan Jacoby "owned" because she won't write the article that Farnaz wants her to write that has nothing to do with "On Faith" and then there was the night that she completely freaked out in an insane rant of cut and paste demagoguery on the so called horrors of Canada's treatment of it's indigenous people, and you can never find any criticism for her. None at all. Not once. Ever.

PRE-judice sir. PREjudice.

YOU: Argy-bargy on a message board does not demonstrate love for all things.

Good thing I haven't been angry or bargy.

YOU: "Love is as love does. Others will decide for themselves whether your posts are as loving as you claim. No need to browbeat them with it"

But I haven't claimed that my posts have been loving. Just that I stated to Thomas Baum specifically in a direct post to him that I love all humans as I love all living things. Ever heard of tough love? I am more concerned about the atrocities that go on towards millions and millions of people in the name of a God who does not exist, to be concerned about the hurt feelings of a few deluded individuals on this thread who need to hear that they are deluded for their own good. Tough love is important. I suppose every parent that yells at their child for doing something stupid or wrong that will hurt them or others is showing the opposite of love in your eyes.

Timmy,

There's no pre about my judice. You said:

"if you have been reading my posts, you would note that I also love all humans and even all living things."

Said again: you invite Thomas/other readers to notice the universal love for all beings transparently present in your posts. Claiming such virtue for yourself, and assuming it will be obvious to others, is either typical Timmy bluster, or hubris of the most epic order.

If the first: don't be stoopid.

If the second: your balloon of conceit is just begging to be pea-shot.

Reiterating your usual *strawman* spiel about me doesn't count here. You made a direct, public claim of your own universal love, and I point out its hubris and laughability.

Judice. A fair cop. And not a strawman in sight.

Argy-bargy on a message board does not demonstrate love for all things. Love is as love does. Others will decide for themselves whether your posts are as loving as you claim. No need to browbeat them with it.

Oh no Frio,

My hatred and criticism of religion is precisely because of my love for all humans and all living things. It is your utter blindness and tendency to straw man and then believe your own straw men that makes you think any of my bluster is aimed at people instead of bad ideas. You can not be helped. You are hopelessly prejudiced against Timmy. So be it.

Well, I guess we have to continue on this thread. Jacoby did not answer the newest question on on faith so here we are.

Weighing in on mystical experiences, I had such a profound one on LSD that it wrenched me out of a severe drug and alcohol problem. In fact the drug was so successful it cured me of itself as well! In other words I view LSD as the drug that not only gave me a mystical experience and cured me of drugs and alcohol, I view it as the drug that cured me of itself.

I consider the experience even more profound than the onset of puberty. I am still trying to process what it meant. It was as if not only having given me my mind anew, but having taught me to take true pleasure in my mind and how to use it to the best it can be used.

I did experience oneness with the universe and something of a revelation. Whether that means God I am still trying to figure out. But I do know it made me feel connected to things and people as never before. I felt that people are aspects of myself that I must aid and develop and that I am an aspect of them which must act to the best of my ability because if I do not I would compromise them.

Has anybody else had such an experience?

Timmy to Thomas Baum,

"if you have been reading my posts, you would note that I also love all humans and even all living things."

(sustained laughter of hyena and kookaburra)

The Timmy Lama! Avalokiteshvara! Ah, love comes in strange guises. Here was I thinking his posts were full of hectoring, overbearing, domineering, browbeating, opinionated, triumphal-galumphal invective, and it was love, sweet love, all along. All-embracing love for even strawmen, little dogs, cornered animals, and actual couches.

Love ain't just love, it would seem.

Thomas,

YOU: "what it sounds like to me is that you are saying: we make no decisions except whether to act on the decisions that are made somehow or another for us, is this what you are trying to say?"

Absolutely not.

YOU: The decisions that we make are free will

No, they are not "free will". They are decisions. Decisions and free will are two separate things.

Think about it this way, Thomas. Why do we make bad decisions? Is it because of our free will? No, of course not. One could have free will and always make the right, or good, decisions. So why don't we just make all good decisions with our free will? Why do we sometimes make bad decisions? What causes us to make bad decisions? It is not free will.

YOU: "Do you really think that "semantics" is "logic and reasoning"?

No, I didn't say anything of this sort.

YOU: speaking for myself, I know that I am not perfect.

Me either. But this does not make me an ingrate.

YOU: I know that you love Timmy2

And I know that you love Thomas Baum. Do you not?

And if you have been reading my posts, you would note that I also love all humans and even all living things.

YOU: "and I also know that you think of love as a tool"

No. I don't think of love as a tool, and I don't think of music as a tool. Love is love, and music is music. But both can be useful as tools in certain circumstances.

YOU: "we, as a species, have a tendency to treat other humans sometimes not as well as we should"

Same goes for Hyenas and monkeys and Polar Bears. Are they ingrates?

TIMMY2

You wrote, "He created us. (according to you) If we make bad decisions, we must have bad decision making faculties. These are separate from free will. Things like judgement and reason. God must have created our "decision making faculties" along with us. Free will is what allows you too act on a decision that you have made. But the decision precedes the act and happens before free will comes onto play. The decision was made with decision making faculties. And we got those from God according to your claim that he created everything."

This does not make sense to me at all, what it sounds like to me is that you are saying: we make no decisions except whether to act on the decisions that are made somehow or another for us, is this what you are trying to say?

The decisions that we make are free will, whether or not we do them is acting on our free will and sometimes after starting to do something, we may for whatever reason change our mind and that is also free will.

Do you really think that "semantics" is "logic and reasoning"?

You then wrote, "And you say I have low opinion of humanity???? This is really funny. I didn't just call us ungrateful ingrates. [sic] You did. I'm not the one who considers us subordinates to a higher power. I'm not the one who thinks that we are all sinners and selfish and arrogant", speaking for myself, I know that I am not perfect.

You then wrote, " I love us. You are the one who is down on us."

I know that you love Timmy2 and I also know that you think of love as a tool so I really do not know what you can mean by "I love us", if you look at reality, you can see that we, as a species, have a tendency to treat other humans sometimes not as well as we should.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PSEUDO: "What seems to bother you about my humor pieces is that they point to past imperfect understandings, improving but still incomplete present understandings, and a wild ride in the near future in which the conceptual boundaries of living an non-living become permeable."

No, what bothers me is that I can't tell when you're serious and when you're not. It seems to be a mixture.

PSEUDO: "For example, the synthesis and 'booting up' of a living bacterium from laboratory chemicals using synthetic techniques is in development as we write (e.g.: "Chemical synthesis of the Mycoplasma genitalium genome" at http://www.jcvi.org/)"

I don't doubt it. But this has no relationship to gene transfer between humans and computers. You can use a computer to design such things, but that is not a transfer of the computer's genes, and cannot be, since it has none.

PSEUDO: "This poses some profound ethical, moral, theological, and biological, questions. Some of these seem 'effing crazy' but, ready or not, we will be facing them very soon."

We already are, and have been for some time. There's a great deal of genetic engineering in agriculture these days, and cloning proceeds apace. Not human, so far, but that will come, because it can. Still not gene transfer from computers.

Thomas,

YOU: Do you consider God giving us free will one of "our faults"?

No.

YOU: Or could it be what we do with our free will that is one of "our faults" that you blame on God.

Yes.
He created us. (according to you) If we make bad decisions, we must have bad decision making faculties. These are separate from free will. Things like judgement and reason. God must have created our "decision making faculties" along with us. Free will is what allows you too act on a decision that you have made. But the decision precedes the act and happens before free will comes onto play. The decision was made with decision making faculties. And we got those from God according to your claim that he created everything.

YOU: You seem to have a low opinion of humanity thinking of us as "manufactured" rather than "created".

I blame the creator. There is that better?

And you say I have low opinion of humanity???? This is really funny. I didn't just call us ungrateful ingrates. [sic] You did. I'm not the one who considers us subordinates to a higher power. I'm not the one who thinks that we are all sinners and selfish and arrogant. I love us. You are the one who is down on us.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "Don't be so hard on us. We didn't create us. God did. I blame the manufacturer for all our faults."

Do you consider God giving us free will one of "our faults"?

Or could it be what we do with our free will that is one of "our faults" that you blame on God.

You seem to have a low opinion of humanity thinking of us as "manufactured" rather than "created".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Pam,

Yes, Lamarck saw and imperfect version of some of the truths of genetics. Mendel saw some computational aspects of genetic factors, computing dominant and recessive pairings of the factors, and other important properties. Darwin saw dynamics of spontaneous mutations under selective pressure. None of them knew anything fundamental about the mechanisms.

What seems to bother you about my humor pieces is that they point to past imperfect understandings, improving but still incomplete present understandings, and a wild ride in the near future in which the conceptual boundaries of living an non-living become permeable.

For example, the synthesis and "booting up" of a living bacterium from laboratory chemicals using synthetic techniques is in development as we write (e.g.: "Chemical synthesis of the Mycoplasma genitalium genome" at http://www.jcvi.org/)

This poses some profound ethical, moral, theological, and biological, questions. Some of these seem "effing crazy" but, ready or not, we will be facing them very soon.

Athagoras,

I fully agree with you.

You are here at the core of the origin of ALL religions!

The experience that we are able to alter this state of our mind as we process sensory and mental input creates a sort of "religious" feeling (which I even as an atheist can share in a sense), which people dub "mystic". If you call this feeling "meeting god" or "being one" is eventually a matter of taste, or rather of cultural background.

I think the point about this oneness business is that the distinction between different objects and between self and non-self is a product of the way minds work. These distinctions are useful and necessary for us to make sense of the world, but they are a product of our mind. Reality just is. By altering the state of your brain you can get some understanding of how you take in sensory data and manufacture the world out of it.

Pam wrote:
"I can't see through anyone else's eyes, or feel anyone else's feelings, or think anyone else's thoughts."

"The mysticism of Eastern religions seems just as senseless to me as the magic of western ones."

There's plenty of BS in Eastern religions, but there's a lot of deep philosophy and there's a lot of practical stuff. Yogis and Buddhist monks have been observing how the human mind works and perceives things for many centuries.

I meditate because it reduces my blood pressure, improves my concentration and helps me sleep better. I enjoy my mystical experiences, but I don't need to ascribe any deep meaning to them.

I recall reading about an MRI study that suggested that the deep religious feelings of oneness with the universe correspond to a brain state where the part of the brain responsible for dealing with spatial perception is suppressed. (Sorry I don't remember the exact details and I can't find the reference - probably on machineslikeus.com)

To Pam from Daniel. When I talked about the "one and the many", or such mystical sayings as "all is one and one is all", I did not mean anything that had to do with a deity or mystical consciousness ("one mind") or anything like that.

Actually I did have a mystical experience, but upon further reflection I realized the "all is one one is all" thing seemed mystical and timeless simply because one of the foundational things about human thought is our breaking one object into many pieces and our amalgamating of many pieces into one. So such seems timeless to us--out of time. But it is not out of time--in other words I am criticizing mystical states of consciousness, etc. I realized after the mystical experience that it seemed timeless only because as long as humans live, as long as we are in time, the foundational thought that many things can become one and that one thing can be broken into many pieces will exist. That is all I meant. Hope that was clearer.

Also I stupidly went to take a nap when the monarch show came on t.v. at 8:00. Now that you describe it I wish I could have seen it. I thought it would just say the monarchs go south and then they go north and then they go south, etc. I never knew about their interesting odyssey north. See you on next thread!

CCNL,

What does any of that have to do with marriage?

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

Sex between the sexes - Part II

A male and a female have intercourse. A male and another male mutually masturbate i.e. have mutual "intracourse". A female and another female mutually masturbate i.e. have mutual "intracourse". Note the word "another".

With respect to gays in general, they act differntly because of differences in their physical makeup. If there is a god, one assumes he/she/it will not punish said individuals since said god is responsible for their created differences to begin with.

If there is no god, then there is no hell (or heaven or purgatory) to worry about.

CCNL,

YOU: A male and a female have intercourse.

in⋅ter⋅course [in-ter-kawrs, -kohrs]
–noun
1. dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.
2. interchange of thoughts, feelings, etc.
3. sexual relations or a sexual coupling, esp. coitus.

CCNL,

I don't think you have to enlighten any one of the participants of this thread about anything concerning sex.

Change your topic, thank you.

" Lamarck brought it out totally into the open and even tried to describe a mechanism for such (of course the famous, or infamous lamarck theory). I think much more highly of Lamarck now."

Lamarck did the best he could with very limited knowledge. A little better observation might have served him well - people had been docking horses and dogs for hundreds of years, but all the young still were born with tails. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread or the last, there has been some slight vindication of his ideas via epigenetics.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

Sex between the sexes:

A male and a female have intercourse. A male and another male mutually masturbate. A female and another female mutually masturbate. Note the word "another".

No hatred involved just basic biology and anatomy.

Daniel12,
I wasn't offended by what you wrote, it just has no meaning for me. Your explanation included this statement: "I meant the simple and timeless observation of the conflict between the many and the one."

To me, there is no such conflict. When people talk about a single consciousness, it just sounds like crazy talk. I have no consciousness but my own, produced by *my* brain, which is not connected to any other brain.

I can't see through anyone else's eyes, or feel anyone else's feelings, or think anyone else's thoughts.

The mysticism of Eastern religions seems just as senseless to me as the magic of western ones.

Now, lest you think of me as totally lacking in imagination, I should tell you that I am an artist, and I used to write poetry, for which I won some awards (although the doggerel of a thread or two ago would not clue you in to that). And, as I've said, I'm a successful dog breeder - it takes an artistic eye for an animal to do that.

I just have a totally naturalistic outlook when it comes to philosophy - most of which seems like idle navel-gazing to me. I believe in clear thinking and no self-delusion. I like to know how and why things work.

Tonight there was a PBS Nova program about monarch butterflies. Most people know that monarchs migrate some 2,000 miles to winter in Mexico, but not many know that when they begin the return journey north, they only go a short distance, breed, and die. The next generation goes farther north, breeds and dies. The third generation does the same. They live only a month or so. It's not until the 4th generation that the monarchs that will fly south are born.

How is a genetic program inherited that will say "fly north" to two generations, and "fly south, overwinter, *then* fly north" in another? And how do genetics make one generation live for 9 months - about 9 times longer than the others?

I can imagine answers (all thoroughly natural) - but I want to *know*.

Daniel:

"I think much more highly of Lamarck now."

Lamarck he didn't know about those little genes
And Darwin knew heredity but didn't know the means

They studied life, its forms, and all its governing laws
Both saw effects but neither new the cause

Daniel,

Thanks for the Zep history. Have you ever seen them live yourself?
My only Zep boots are "Blueberry Hill", and and LA show called "For Badge Holders Only". 75???

Too bad Peter Grant gave himself such fits over bootlegging. Given the amount of great Zep boots out there, it's clear he spent so much of his time on a battle of evermore futility.

continuing with Zep shows: although plant reportedly underwent surgery for his voice in '74 his voice is still low in '75. pages guitar style changes to a gunmetal blue and hard type of sound. the nassau second night; long beach second night; vancouver second night; and seattle mar/21 are the best. seattle is definitely the best show. one of the boots of such "seattle supersonic" gives the idea. the fourth night at royal albert hall is also a must.

1977 and plants voice thankfully almost returns to normal. pages style changes again: this time to the cold, hard wintergreen type of style similar to the presence lp. too many good shows to list here: four l.a. shows; three capital center; two cleveland; etc.

1979 and plants voice is good. page's guitar playing changes again: similar to '71-'73 but different...the two copenhagen shows are what to get.

'80 and plants voice is somewhat rough. page changes to a crystalline type of playing. virtually every show of '80 is on bootleg. That should do it. let me see if this will post....

To Timmy from Daniel. You can get started getting boots by going to tape trader sites. Tape trading is legal because no money changes hands--people trade tapes. If you have no tapes there are people who will send you shows if you give them blank tapes or cdrs in return.

Getting an overview of Zep by concerts is essential. Page would change his guitar style by the seasons--no joke. Prior to the summer of '69 he played a telecaster. A fundamental boot is apr/26/69 winterland--a psychedelic raw blues show (according Led Zep collector Luis Rey). After the summer of '69 Page changed to Les Paul--and Texas Pop, Milwaukee and Lyceum London are good shows. In '70 page changes again. Same Les Paul but sounding different. Interestingly, Jethro Tull and the Allman bros have this same change in sound. Something of a loose yet thorough hard rock approach--difficult to describe. Led Zep boots of '70 include montreaux, Charlotte, L.A., Oakland, L.A. again (the latter the famous blueberry hill) and N.Y.

in '71 page changes again--and the allmans and tull do the same. This time the sound becomes slicker and more fluent. If you know the allmans at fillmore east live set you get an idea of what I mean. '71 has some monster shows. Dublin, Belfast, montreaux, L.A. forum, two berkeley shows. Most astonishing of '71 is the japanese tour--five shows, each different (different dazed improvisation--actually page always differs here); different acoustic set; different whole lotta love. '71 is probably the peak of plant's voice. leicester is also a good show of '71.

With '72 we have the aussie tour. Adelaide and melbourne are good. The adelaide I have is on a boot called "OOh, my ears man! because that is what an aussie says next to the tape recorder after the opening immigrant song. Also good shows are charlotte, baltimore, nassau n.y., san bernardino, l.a. and tuscon. plant's voice notably drops in '72 and sadly fails mostly on the '72 japanese tour. As for page '71, '72, and '73 are similar except page just gets more and more fluent and the interaction with bonham inevitably approaches the legendary. With '73 we have plants voice low (his voice is getting shot) but we have the tremendous tour of germany. Page and bonham here are unbelievable. Vienna, munich, nuremburg, offenbach, berlin and hamburg must be heard. the berlin boot I have gives the idea by the title "majestic holies". The berlin dazed has page at the beginning manipulating the pickup toggle switch creating a sinister rattlesnake type of sound. The versions of dazed from germany are all better than the song remains the same.

Also from '73 we have the american tour. new orleans is good. so is seattle. also l.a.. here plants voice recovers a bit--but it is still low as you can hear from the song remains the same movie.

I have to post now timmy because although I tried to give year by year descriptions my post would not go through--I had to erase quite a bit.

To Pam again. I forgot to say thank you for letting me know that the concept of evolution existed before the concept of natural selection.

Right after you let me know I went to the info on such I have at hand--the encyclopedia. I fully expected you to be right, but what I did not expect is that Lamarck was the first truly major figure to lay out the concept of evolution. Of course there were people before him, but the encyclopedia says they kept it largely underwraps. Lamarck brought it out totally into the open and even tried to describe a mechanism for such (of course the famous, or infamous lamarck theory). I think much more highly of Lamarck now. Half the battle toward a new idea is often someone just having the courage to broach a question. It seems lamarck laid fundamental groundwork toward inspiring others to answer the question better than him. He might have got the answer wrong, but still he gets great credit for trying to answer it.

To Pam. Sorry Pam if I offended you by saying everyone is familiar with things seemingly having come from an eternal background and that things in turn are placed in an eternal background. I did not mean anything like things placed in a background of a deity. What I meant was things have emerged in time from seemingly a background beyond time (back to the big bang and hypothetically before). And to be even clearer, I meant the simple and timeless observation of the conflict between the many and the one. We imagine both many things and one thing. A fundamental dichotomy that will exist as long as there is time. Therefore it is "timeless". That is all.

CCNL,

I am not.
And neither are Gays and Lesbians when it comes to sex.
Deal with it, homophobe.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

And you are still "anatomy challenged".

CCNL,

YOU TO ME: "You are anatomy challenged!!!!"

I am not.
And neither are Gays and Lesbians when it comes to sex. Just baby making, which is not a prerequisite for marriage. Otherwise we would also have to exclude sterile men and women with no ovaries from marriage as well.

Onofrio,

My my my aren't you just the most tender eared soul.

YOU: I don't know about anyone else, but I, the dog, could do without your brutally blunt reduction of eros, even if it is against Bun Bun.

Well you can't please em all. I used the very same line on CC on another thread and even Aminius, the greatest timmy hater of them all, piped in with a "nice job on CCNL, Timmy". So who's to know who's going to like what?

YOU: Do you really believe your own simplistic bluster here?

Yes I do. Do you believe that Hetro sex that is not intended to produce a baby is fundamentally different than gay sex because they use different parts? I do not. It's about satisfying the pleasure centers and nothing more whether you're gay or straight. Is it dirty words you have trouble with or did you think the logic of my analogy was wrong?

YOU: "It's one thing to speak out boldly for your principles and convictions, or even to pillory an opponent. It's quite another to take your cues from CCNL in barefaced ugliness"

Just fighting fire with fire. You can always cover your tender ears when you see a post from me to CCNL.

YOU: Why this mania for refutation? Are you collecting trophies for some virtual hunting lodge?

Don't be so ridiculous. Mania for refutation? This is a debating blog sir. I know that you and Farnaz try your best to turn it into a poetry appreciation club, but that's not it's intended purpose. I'm certain there are actual poetry appreciation blogs, why not go there if you don't want to hear any refutation of idiocy that calls for refutation.

YOU: Would you sacrifice even beauty, just to win a point?

This from a man who, when humorously likened to a cartoon, decides to respond with "So Timmy says that Women = Dogs". Is that the kind of beauty you are looking for? How about Farnaz calling everyone who disagrees with her a bigot and an antisemite? The very slimiest of demagoguery and race card playing goes on here on a regular basis and you are concerned about my one use of bawdy language? (which the sensors let go BTW)

YOU: Not your finest moment, Timmy.

Yes well, coming from such a fan of mine, I'll have to take that for what it's worth. Coming from someone who knew that a cartoon analogy was being made and yet sunk to the slimiest of demagoguery lows by responding with "Timmy says that Women = Dogs".

I'll take my blog etiquette lessons from someone else thank you very much.

Dear Pam:

"I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt before. You *are* effing nuts."

No, not even a little bit. But *you* are way behind the times.

Timmy,
re your most recent post to CCNL,

Sir Oracle, it's time for this "cornered animal" to yelp, not on its own behalf, but on that of taste.

I don't know about anyone else, but I, the dog, could do without your brutally blunt reduction of eros, even if it is against Bun Bun. Do you really believe your own simplistic bluster here? It's one thing to speak out boldly for your principles and convictions, or even to pillory an opponent. It's quite another to take your cues from CCNL in barefaced ugliness.

Why this mania for refutation? Are you collecting trophies for some virtual hunting lodge? Would you sacrifice even beauty, just to win a point?

CCNL has enough rope; let him dangle, don't get entangled.

Not your finest moment, Timmy.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

You are anatomy challenged!!!!

CCNL

if you're not making a kid, your only goal in sex is to make each other come, which is mutual masturbation. It doesn't matter what parts you use. It's still just mutual masturbation.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

Male-female sexual activity- define the parts involved, ditto for female-female sexual activity, ditto for male-male sexual activity- Now note the differences.

What again is the topic of this thread??

Pseudo says:
"Suppose my computer has a gene that confers resistance to HIV in its data base. Now I use my DNA printer to make a copy of it..."

I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt before. You *are* effing nuts.

Daniel12 says:

" In other words, as long as there is time the concept that all is one, etc. will endure, because that is one--perhaps the one--true foundational statement of life. Everyone is familiar with observing that all objects seem to be placed in one eternal background and that things seem to have come from this eternal background. "

Speak for yourself, Daniel. I've never had a thought remotely like this.

Pamsm:

"COMPUTERS DON'T HAVE GENES."

Sure they do. Whole genomes of them. More than that, there are increasing numbers of computer peripherals that can express them by writing DNA strands.

Suppose my computer has a gene that confers resistance to HIV in its data base. Now I use my DNA printer to make a copy of it and give it to you for in vivo insertion by an adenovirus. Now you become resistant too because you now carry the gene in certain cells of your body. That the transfer is partially artificial does not change the fact that this is a horizontal transfer of a gene held in silico to you in vivo.

Is this problematical for you because my computer does not use the human genes it has in its data base to reproduce itself?

Thomas,

YOU: it is God's doing, in spite of the fact that that we, humanity, can be a bunch of ungrateful, self-centered, egotistical, selfish, childish, complaining ingrates.

Don't be so hard on us. We didn't create us. God did. I blame the manufacturer for all our faults.

Hello Farnaz,

You to me, re Rev Elliott:
"The problem is he won't engage me on the specifics, or if he does, he will circularly wend his way victorious by proclaiming Christian antisemites, "not really Christian." And so it goes."

Ain't it the truth. It's one of the tactical advantages of *belief* - one can always claim that those who share it with one, but act objectionably, have understood it wrongly. And as you know so well, there's no such neat sidestep available for those who've been racialised. *Blood* is incorrigible and ever culpable, it would seem. *Belief* can be put on and off like a garment.

I have seconded your mention of the Bishop Williamson matter in a response to Thomas Baum, on t'other thread.

Further on Francis Webb: the institution where he died is particularly well populated by jacarandas :) In 'Nuriootpa' that you quote (merci, it's a great poem), I particularly like the *swimming pool* stanza, with its "tattoo / And rap of ripple marshals". Zesta! Echoes of summers in rural New South Wales towns, and the sanctuary found in the municipal pool. And the "swarms of galahs past counting". Have you seen a galah? They're parrots, mainly pink, white, and grey plumaged. Galahs in congregation make a sort of quirrelling, squeaky chatter, punctuated by pipes and whistles. They appear along my street quite often. In the Fundament, to call someone a *galah* is a term of mild derision.

I haven't forgotten the ouroboros, btw.

PAMSM

You wrote, "Mystical thinking...magical thinking...what's the difference?

All just a bunch of self-important humans thinking that humanity is so wonderful that it must be part of some "ultimate meaning."".

Quite the contrary, it is God's doing, in spite of the fact that that we, humanity, can be a bunch of ungrateful, self-centered, egotistical, selfish, childish, complaining ingrates.

That is why God not only created us and everything else but came up with His Plan which is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello Onofrio,

Wonderful that you have a Jacaranda tree! I'm terribly envious. Oddly, in the Farnaz Mental Storage Room, Norman Lindsay rests, chained to a rock, I should add. Webb surely did fall out with him as you say, wrestled, Francis did, in serious ways, with the Catholic problem of the Jewish man. As for Elliott, yes, I noticed your engagement, penned a few lines to you about it here and on his thread, I did.

I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with the rev. I can go back to the first antisemitic violence of the Middle Ages, move on to the first crusade, etc., and end with today's date. The problem is he won't engage me on the specifics, or if he does, he will circularly wend his way victorious by proclaiming Christian antisemites, "not really Christian." And so it goes. Will we soon hear that Ratzinger is not really Christian (Catholics consider themselves Christian, as you know)? Re-communicated Bishop Williamson, of the Shoah-denying-psychopathic-followers-of-fascist-lover-Lefebre Williamson not really Christian?

I think you're doing brilliantly with the reverend, and I'm staying tuned. Also, as I wrote to you earlier, I don't want to be unkind to him. I'm Jewish, and I've seen what I've written about up close and personal. He's not young, has dug into delusion, etc. What to do.

Nuriootpa

Men with ancient communal brooms last night
Went over their pride and joy to doll it up aright.
Interloping box and bottle,
Some stray native head of cattle,
Were worried away or chivvied out of sight.

Cock-crow has called a halt: they sit them down.
Ready-handed morning, trundling about the town,
Dumps sovereigns to accord
Their labours due reward,
And such tuns of vintner summer as never have been known.

The hills drink; their decorous verdures settle. Chanting
Our brazen songs, from the haggard bus decanting
Our children, we look askance
At those gatekeeping trees' immense
Hands shaken in welcome - swarms of galahs past counting.

But the small, lenient hills, with a deference,
Proffer green flagonfuls to our wary sense;
Good English lies athwart
This Annual Report,
Beaming, brooding, chiding, and innocent of offence.

Foreground admits the malcontent, his bawling
Futile because they will fine him never a shilling
For brandishings of the torch.
Here the plump Teutonic church
Might stretch its pillars out and lean back without falling.

The swimming-pool, well-groomed but set askew
(For there is no excellent beauty...), with tattoo
And rap of ripple marshals
Whole sprawling vines and bushels
Of feckless sunshine into an orderly crew.

Five o'clock: we shrug off these cozenings, these embraces
Of the artful grape, we yearn for our rightful places:
Cinemas, beds-and-boards, lanes.
Nuriootpa is yet at pains
To light bravely our proud, heretical faces.

-Francis Webb

Daniel12,

I have told CCNL many times that hetro sex that is not intended to produce a baby (which is most of it) is also just mutual masturbation. But he doesn't seem to get it. He seems to be against any sex that is not intended to produce a baby. What a exceptional prude.

YOU: "-I have about 100 Led Zep boots"

I only have a couple, but when I was a teenager I must have seen "The Song Remains The Same" a hundred times. Jimmy Page was my hero back then, and I still believe he made a deal with the devil to be able to play so ridiculous. To this day when I listen to "Since I've Been Loving You" I just can't imagine how any human being could express such emotion so precisely through an electric guitar, unless Satan made it so.

Thomas Baum has net Satan. I wonder if he picked up any guitar tips? ;)

Frederic,

Of course, you are right about Rilke. Here is a page with other translations, none of them satisfactory.

http://www.thebeckoning.com/poetry/rilke/rilke3.html

"The Panther" is probably Rilke's most frequently anthologized poem here, probably because of its high modernist sensibility and appeal to yankee angst.

Translation angst reminds me of this: "Die Leiden des jungen Werthers," most often rendered as "The Sorrows of Young Werther." Many years ago, a translator went ballistic over "The Sorrows," substituting the Suffering" in its stead. What it loses in melody, it gains in accuracy, but "The Sorrows" has prevailed.

Oh, well, at least we haven't had a rash of young men killing themselves over translation woes or Lottes. Endless stress, but the storms are not lethal.

On Zen buddhism: after years of reading books on such and thinking about it, I find that Zen does not exist to broaden a person's mind in the sense of acquiring knowledge of things that can be written or said, but exists to rapidly increase proficiency in non language arts and acts.

For example, everyone is familiar with the process by which one has learned how to drive a car. First comes the awkward stage of trying to get the hang of it. Then gradually comes the feeling of professionalism--THE FEELING THAT ONE CAN DO IT WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT, AND IT IS TRUE ONE CAN LET ONE'S MIND WANDER AND NOT WORRY ABOUT GETTING INTO AN ACCIDENT.

Well Zen facilitates this process. One must not think but learn the movements of swordfighting or the tea ceremony or archery. Or if you prefer a Western example, not think while playing basketball (super winning coach of the Bulls and the Lakers Phil Jackson was famous for zen statements in the locker room).

The ideal of zen is perfection first in a particular art, and then this effortlessness and perfection transfered to all of one's life. Whether there is some supernatural beyond or a magical "one mind" or nirvana or such does not really seem necessary. Or if necessary the statements concerning such that we have been given are misleading, suggest something more than a perfection in an art leading to perfection in general in life.

In other words, people are mesmerized by Zen and desire to achieve enlightenment, but this enlightenment is "only" increasing perfection in one's art and life. I say "only" because to really compare moments of perfection with one's ordinary life is to put these moments on a pedestal and to long with all one's heart for such perfection.

Zen facilitates perfection in the physical rather than the mental such as language. But then again it is true that perfection in language follows something of the same process of learning a physical art such as swordfighting. But it seems in Japan the emphasis was on the physical. If writing, calligraphy...More often gardening, tea ceremony, martial arts, swords, archery....

Thomas,

YOU: "To you, Jesus is a religious affiliation but to me, Jesus is my Brother and not just my Brother but the Brother of ALL HUMANITY"

No Thomas. Jesus is not a religious affiliation to me, he is a religious affiliation to everyone. Only Christians believe that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" and that "no one comes to the Father except thru Me". Atheists do not accept Jesus as the path and neither do Hindus. Since God is Jesus, it was God who said that only through Jesus can one enter the kingdom of heaven so God does indeed care about religious affiliations or lack there of. At least according to the quote you posted above.

FREDERIC2

You wrote, "And nobody has ever met a god,"

I have not only met God but I have also met satan.

Just because you haven't, does not mean that others have not met God this side of breath.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Farnaz,

I don't mean to interrupt the Rilke flow. I just wanted to respond to some earlier comments of yours. Last night (here), the site did not accept my posts, due to some gremlin.

I took up your earlier invitation to check the Elliott thread, was vexed, and got all turgidly prosy. I find myself perched on a wire, netless as Persiflage says. We'll see...

As for Francis Webb, I know of him mainly in connection with the artist Norman Lindsay, with whom he fell out. Lindsay is famous here in the Fundament for his voluptuous unclad ladies - technically accomplished, but kitsch IMHO. His antisemitism is less well known. I'm familiar with some of Webb's oeuvre from an anthology of Austral poetry I own. He was certainly gifted. I like best the long 'Ward 2', and also 'Airliner' and 'The Sea'. There are a couple of lines in the latter that particularly fascinate me:

"We raise an altar of stones; the chanting winds
Fret godly cliff-face for yellow coin of sands."

Love its sound.

I live close to the suburb where Webb died. This part of Sydney is rife with jacarandas. Their glory is greatest in the early summer, when they're all fully laden with their purplish blossoms. There's a sizeable jac sapling in my backyard, along with several sprouts (they propagate almost weed-easily).

Thank you for the second Endrezze - so full of sensory savour. I will recall the "purple lanterns".

And thanks too for the birdlike almanacs, grandmother's tears, and child's drawings of Bishop's 'Sestina'. Again, new to me.

Poet-wise, I'm pretty much fixated on a handful - staples are Yeats and Thomas, with helpings of Auden, Donne, Keats, and the Bard. You have helped me be less of a narrow pounder.

To weigh in on a few things people are talking about here...

It is true that a man putting his penis (which is meant for urination and ejaculation) into the anus of another man (the anus is meant for defecation) is illogical from the perspective that sex is for reproduction. What are gays trying to do? Inseminate a bowl movement? Mix urine with feces? But--and this is a big but--man is the imaginative creature par excellence and he will mix and match and juxtapose all that comes into his ken.--And he does so for adaptive advantage. Here homosexuality has its highest justification. A good book: Our lady of the flowers by French homosexual, thief and convict Jean Genet.

Second, people seem to be talking about music here lately. I really only listen to live music (jazz before 1970 recorded live in the studio; string quartets recorded live in the studio; and bootlegs of rock bands--I have about 100 Led Zep boots; 60 or so Jeff Becks, etc. My boot collection has great guitarists as the theme...).

Third, people seem to be discussing Zen and in general the mystical view. I remember having had a mystical experience in which "all became one and one became all". It was a timeless and all truthful experience for me. But upon further reflection I found that it was timeless not because it was out of time, above time, beyond time, but because it is a foundational ontological statement. In other words, as long as there is time the concept that all is one, etc. will endure, because that is one--perhaps the one--true foundational statement of life. Everyone is familiar with observing that all objects seem to be placed in one eternal background and that things seem to have come from this eternal background. Once again, a foundational ontological statement--nothing necessarily supernatural, mystical in the sense of touching God, or touching nirvana. It is timeless because for all time humans will break down existence into this conception among other (and perhaps more "timeless") conceptions.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "We'll have to agree to disagree that the statement above is you asserting that God is indeed the Catholic God."

I will say that God is the 'catholic' God as in universal, as I have said, God is the God of ALL.

One of the things that I have said to quite a few is: If one is going to be Catholic, might as well be catholic.

You also wrote, " Why would you have to yell the words "being of pure love" at people? It makes no sense."

To me it is not yelling, it is putting an emphasis on it since by what so many write about God, some would never have a clue that the statement "God is Love" is quite literal as in Love being His Very Being not an attribute.

You also wrote, "But Thomas Baum has also said ad nauseam: "God is a seeker of hearts not of religious affiliations".

Jesus is a religious affiliation Thomas. So which one of your statements is false. One of them has to be."

Actually I said, "God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

You, if I remember right, have said that you have read the bible three times, there are many places where it says God searches the heart and it also says that God-Incarnate looked into their hearts.

To you, Jesus is a religious affiliation but to me, Jesus is my Brother and not just my Brother but the Brother of ALL HUMANITY.

It also says in the bible that "TRUE RELIGION is taking care of widows and orphans" to me this means taking care of those that are worse off than oneself so since we are all worse off than everyone else in one way or another then it is everyone taking care of everyone else.

If you notice the definition of TRUE RELIGION does not even mention God.

I look at it as we, each individually, are God's gift to humanity and what kind of gift we are is our choice to make. And conversely, all others are God's gift to us.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Farnaz,

language is also music, just as music is also language.

It is already impossible to translate the sheer semantics. "Der Schauende", e.g., is "the man who watches" alright, but it is also the man who has a vision, who sees and understands. The musical part is lost completely in the semantic translation, which may even become trite, and if one tries to evoke the music, one has to recur to a different content, almost creating a new poem.

It is fun, though, and it reflects on the limits of communication through language, not only in poetry but in life and - in "On faith"!

"Der Panther" was a poem we reflected on in high school, so - thanks for making me quite wistful!

Here is a popular translation of "The Panther" which I posted in German below. Translating Rilke has become an internet industry, probably because, as any German speaker will see from what follows, the task is impossible.

The Panther

His vision, from the constantly passing bars,
has grown so weary that it cannot hold
anything else. It seems to him there are
a thousand bars, and behind the bars, no world.

As he paces in cramped circles, over and over,
the movement of his powerful soft strides
is like a ritual dance around a center
in which a mighty will stands paralyzed.

Only at times, the curtain of the pupils
lifts, quietly. An image enters in,
rushes down through the tense, arrested muscles,
plunges into the heart and is gone.

-- Rainer Maria Rilke

CCNL,

Are you religious?

Frederic2,

"You probably refer to the Concerto in g minor for two celli by Vivaldi"

That's the one. Lately I've been listening to that one every morning first thing as I make my breakfast. A lovely good morning piece.

Frederic, for you.

Der Panther

Sein Blick ist vom Vorübergehn der Stäbe
So müd geworden, daß er nichts mehr hält.
Ihm ist, als ob es tausend Stäbe gäbe
und hinter tausend Stäben keine Welt.

Der weiche Gang geschmeidig starker Schritte,
Der sich im allerkleinsten Kreise dreht,
Ist wie ein Tanz von Kraft um eine Mitte,
In der betäubt ein großer Wille steht.

Nur manchmal schiebt der Vorhang der Pupille
Sich lautlos auf. - Dann geht ein Bild hinein,
geht durch der Glieder angespannte Stille -
Und hört im Herzen auf zu sein.

-Rilke

Dan in the Den,

Hate? How do you read hate in noting the Reality and Truth about the foundations of the major religions and the flaws and errors derived from said foundations??

Hate gays? How do you read that into noting the physical truth that gay sexual activity is simply "mutual masturbation"? Maybe the description of lesbian sexual activity by the ancients and not so ancients would be a better description?

" The ancient Greek rhetorician Lucian used "Lesbian" as an adjective to refer to female homosexuality, but the most common term used by ancient writers was Tribade, which could mean either a masculine woman, or a woman who has sex with another woman. This term continued to be the most common word used in medical literature in up to the 18th century in Europe.[3] The word meant "rubber", on the assumption that female homosexual practices involved sexual stimulation by rubbing together both the genitalia of two women,[4] and referred to sexual practices rather than the modern concept of sexual orientations.[3"

from Wikipedia

Pseudo says:
"In vivo gene therapy using, say adenovirus-mediated transfer of computer-generated gene sequences synthesized in vitro should become practical within a decade. Voila! HGT from computers to humans coming soon to a clinic near you."

Sorry, Pseudo, I'm not buying this. Using a computer to design the gene sequence, and then creating it, is *not* HGT between computer and human. This can never happen because COMPUTERS DON'T HAVE GENES.

Frederic,

Re: Bogan

She was an important American poet and, definitely, one of her time. She was profoundly influenced by, affected by Rilke, early on by Yeats. Later, occasionally, she and Eliot would come out with almost the same one or two lines in different poems, with different sensibilities. But Rilke was never far from her.

Frederic,

Can we download any of your playing? It's okay if not, but who does not love the cello?

One of my students is playing the Dvorak b minor tomorrow in class (with piano).

You probably refer to the Concerto in g minor for two celli by Vivaldi.

And no, Farnaz, i was not familiar with Louise Bogan, but thanks for the introduction.

Frederic2,

Cello! My favorite. And not just because I had a mad crush on the girl who played the cellist in "Fame". Lori Singer? man I loved her.

Dvorak's concerto for cello in B minor is my all time favorite classical piece.
I am also extremely fond of a piece called concerto for two cellos in G minor, I'm not sure the composer is.

I'm impressed. Got any mp3's of you playing that we could download somewhere?
I play the cello horizontally strapped over my neck, and mine has frets on the neck. I guess that makes it a guitar, but back when I was in high school and I played in a rock band I would sometimes use a bow on my guitar, a la Jimmy Page. The chicks really dug that. Those were the days.

Dear Frederic,

Come back, please.

Farnaz

Hi Frederic,

Are you familiar with the poetry of Louise Bogan? She was influenced by Rilke.

Song for a Lyre

The landscape where I lie
Again from boughs sets free
Summer; all night must fly
In wind's obscurity
The thick, green leaves that made
Heavy the August shade.

Soon, in the pictured night,
Returns -- as in a dream,
Left after sleep's delight --
The shallow autumn stream:
Softly awake, its sound
Poured on the chilly ground.

Soon fly the leaves in throngs;
O love, though once I lay
Far from its sound, to weep,
When night divides my sleep,
When stars, the autumn stream,
Stillness, divide my dream,
Night to your voice belongs.

-Louise Bogan

Hi Frederic,

What a lovely outing! Alas, not all translations of Rilke are as good as one might want. "Der Schaunde" is most often translated as "The Man Watching."

So, you have written music for Rilke's verse?

Ok, Timmy, (and Farnaz!) I might as well out myself as a cellist, striving for expression, resonance, understanding, communication, pathetically speaking: love. Solo, chamber music, orchestra (formerly), teaching, publishing ... posting, once in a while, lol!

(Frederick is just as good!)

Frederic2,

Sorry about the misspelling of your name in my last post.

To the opening statement in your last post: "No one really needs God in any form"
This is the point I have been trying to make, but it really seems to rile up some of the posters here. Of course I get the old "Timmy, who are you to say what other people may or may not need?" I have used cigarettes as an analogy to show how one could say the same thing about them. "Some people need cigarettes" or "Some people find cigarettes useful".

I have asked the non-believing religious apologists (defenders) here what they think is different about the people that they claim "need God" or can "get some benefit from God belief", and this question seems to stump all of them. They usually get mad at me at this point and start in with the poetic semantic belly dancing and labeling of me as a binary minded reason worshiper. Their reaction to my simple relevant question is that of a cornered animal. They lash out and make personal attacks on me. I certainly understand why. This question makes the non believer, who has what Dan Dennet calls "belief in belief", realize what an elitist position it is that they hold, that they are too enlightened to believe in superstition themselves, but that "some people" need such delusion in order to cope with what the atheist copes with just fine without.

What is different about these people who need God, or who benefit from delusion? Like I always say, in the case of cigarettes, it is addiction. In the case of God, it is brainwashing. Nothing more.

The Neighbor

Strange violin, why do you follow me?
In how many foreign cities did you
speak of your lonely nights and those of mine.
Are you being played by hundreds? Or by one?

Do in all great cities men exist
who tormented and in deep despair
would have sought the river but for you?
And why does your playing always reach me?

Why is it that I am always neighbor
to those lost ones who are forced to sing
and to say: Life is infinitely heavier
than the heaviness of all things.

-Rainer Maria Rilke

Translated by Albert Ernest Flemming

Hi Frederick,

Good post you heretic you.

I know you are a classical musician, but I don't think I know what instrument? Do you play in a symphony?

Nobody really needs god in any form. If god were necessary for personal, familial, group or national well-being in this century, those who think he simply doesn't exist, would have to suffer SOME drawback.

In contrast, those who stick to the idea of god, suffer heavy drawback: The Muslim population in Germany (some in third generation!) is the least successful, the poorest, the least educated, the most isolated, the least integrated and by far the most religious.

The European countries with little religious affiliations do a lot better than the US as far as social and personal problems are concerned (crime, abortion, poverty).

Nobody needs god, no matter how sophisticated the terms you use to describe "him", Thomas et alii. And your bible quotations prove nothing but what we all already know, by god, namely, that they are written in the bible.

And nobody has ever met a god, except in one's imagination or in a man-made effigy, black Madonna etc.! Imagination is a very powerful tool, for better or worse, I know this as a musician - and I use it as much as I can, of course!

CCNL

From your writings and poems, you seem to hate gay people and you seem to hate black people. And you seem to hate people in general. Have I got that right? And you seem to love the unborn.

Oh yes, and you hate Muslism, and Jews, and all religious people. and also atheists who do not attend mass.

So, what's the deal?

Thomas Baum said: "Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me".

But Thomas Baum has also said ad nauseam: "God is a seeker of hearts not of religious affiliations"

Jesus is a religious affiliation Thomas. So which one of your statements is false. One of them has to be.

Thomas,

YOU: We are not at odds, you are.

I know you are but what am I?
lol.
Thomas Thomas Thomas. one person can not be at odds. What are you 14?
You think God is one thing and I think God is another. That's called being at odds, on the subject at hand. Don't worry Thomas, it doesn't mean that you're odd. It just means that you have a differing opinion than I have on a particular topic. If you do not believe that God is a myth, or a metaphor, then we're at odds on that. You persist in asserting one opinion, I persist in asserting another.

YOU: I never said that God is the "Catholic God", God is the God of ALL, I said that God is God and He is a Trinity and the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus and that the Holy Spirit revealed to me that Jesus is the Catholic Eucharist.

We'll have to agree to disagree that the statement above is you asserting that God is indeed the Catholic God. It seems clear to me. Especially coupled with all of your quoting from the Catholic Bible.

YOU: "Truth is Truth, just like Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", so since I met Dad, God the Father, I would say that I went thru Jesus"

First you claim that all you have ever said is that God is a being of pure love. But here you are adding that God is also the way, the truth and the light. And in other posts you have given him other qualities as well.

YOU: don't worry, God has a Plan and His Plan will come to Fruition.

I have told you many many time Thomas. I'm not worried. I do not require your comfort. Save the "don't worry"s for someone else.

YOU: God chose me to speak, not to hand out rose-colored glasses.

Yes yes we've all heard this line a thousand times, got any new lines?
And I have told you many many times, Thomas, I am not in need of any rose colored glasses. I'm doing just fine thank you very much.

YOU: To you God as a "being of pure love" might be "a very abstract thought" but to me God Is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and Is a Trinity Whom I have met.

As usual, I don't believe you. Even if you find a way to put those words "BEING OF PURE LOVE" into double triple caps and in super duper bold type, I'm still not going to believe you. In fact the caps actually make your point look weaker. I think you should just leave those words in regular type, it's stronger. Although I still would not believe you, I think the caps give it away that you really don't even believe it yourself. Why would you have to yell the words "being of pure love" at people? It makes no sense.

Take care, be ready. always wear clean underwear. Don't take any wooden nickels.

We see Thomas "the Moses of the NT" Baum is still suffering from hallucinations. Maybe the Trinity of gods will visit BO and help him fix the economy??

TIMMY2

You also wrote, "God as a being of pure love is a very abstract thought that I have no problem with."

To you God as a "being of pure love" might be "a very abstract thought" but to me God Is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and Is a Trinity Whom I have met.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "If you had only ever said that God was a being of pure love, we would not be at odds. It is your insistence that God is the Catholic God that separates us."

We are not at odds, you are.

I never said that God is the "Catholic God", God is the God of ALL, I said that God is God and He is a Trinity and the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus and that the Holy Spirit revealed to me that Jesus is the Catholic Eucharist.

Truth is Truth, just like Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", so since I met Dad, God the Father, I would say that I went thru Jesus.

Jesus was speaking the Truth and He Is the Truth just like He said, don't worry, God has a Plan and His Plan will come to Fruition.

God chose me to speak, not to hand out rose-colored glasses.

Jesus also said, "Night is coming when no man can work, be ready" but don't worry, the dawning of the seventh day shall also arrive.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy - I tried a lengthy response in the early AM that never went through. Here's a condensed version that will have to do. The answer to Zen koans is generally known...as for example:

'does a dog have the Buddha Nature?' The answer is 'Mu'. Understanding and solving the synthesis of the question and answer that comprises the riddle is the object of contemplation - the solution will be non-rational and spontaneous.

The accuracy of the solution, based on the insight of the student, will be determined by the Zen master that has assigned the koan. Koans and zazen are the basis for the Rinzai (sudden) school of Zen, while zazen alone is the basis for the Soto school.

Advocates of the sudden school believe that grappling with koans will expedite the process culminating in enlightenment (which in turn can vary in degree, intensity, and overall level of realization). The process does not stop there by any means..... there are ever-deepening levels.

I suspect we have far more similarities than differences Timmy - it looks like you're on the high road after all. More later....
__________

Pseudo - I'm familiar with St. Theresa and her fellow Spanish mystic , St. John of the Cross. Divine love is a concept (and inner experience) more commonly found among Christian and Muslim mystics - Rumi comes to mind. Thomas Baum is the obvious example here - and I have considerable respect for his experience, but am not sure how it translates to others....without undergoing the same experience. There are of course Protestant mystics as well - see Emmanual Swedenborg as a prime example.

Buddhism is based on the twin concepts of enlightenment and bodhichitta (compassion) - one without the other is incomplete.

The saints and sages of the Abrahamic faiths would be an exceedingly interesting topic at another time. Unfortunately Catholicism does not typically show much respect for the inner experiences arising out of Buddhism - Benedict once referred to Buddhism as 'mental masturbation' earlier in his Vatican career. This is not a very ecumenical attitude, in my view. I hope that has changed.....

Pamsm,

Interesting read on the question of horizontal gene transfer from computers to humans:

The Scientific American January 24, 2008 reports:

"Longest Piece of Synthetic DNA Yet

Scientists have created an entire bacterial genome with off-the-shelf chemicals"

In vivo gene therapy using, say adenovirus-mediated transfer of computer-generated gene sequences synthesized in vitro should become practical within a decade. Voila! HGT from computers to humans coming soon to a clinic near you.

Back to the topic:

The Reality of BO's Rhetoric

Barack Obama is his name,
Pres because of skin tone?
Because of the race game?
No,‘cause dead babies moan!!

Voting “moms and dads” of said life forms,
Yes, 70 million indeed they voted for
One BH Obama, as pro-abortion he conforms,
And now the "I" Majority rules life’s door!!!

Thank you, Farnaz. It reminds me of my "encounter" with Rilke when I was a very young man. I even wrote a melody (still in my memory!) on a verse of "Der Schauende:

Wie ist das klein, womit wir ringen,
was mit uns ringt, wie ist das groß;
ließen wir, ähnlicher den Dingen,
uns so vom großen Sturm bezwingen, -
wir würden weit und namenlos.

(How small is it all we are are wrestling with, how big is all that wrestles with us.
If we just let us be thus overwhelmed, like things, by the big storm,
we would become wide and nameless.)

HELLO FREDERIC,

Do you like Rilke? I found a couple of his poems in German and in English. I posted "Initiale."

Farnaz

Initiale

Aus unendlichen Sehnsüchten steigen
endliche Taten wie schwache Fontänen,
die sich zeitig und zitternd neigen.
Aber, die sich uns sonst verschweigen,
unsere fröhlichen kräfte—zeigen
sich in diesen tanzenden Tränen.

-Rainer Maria Rilke

Initial

Out of infinite longings rise
finite deeds like weak fountains,
falling back just in time and trembling.
And yet, what otherwise remains silent,
our happy energies—show themselves
in these dancing tears.

(tr. Cliff Crego)

A Walk

My eyes already touch the sunny hill.
going far ahead of the road I have begun.
So we are grasped by

what we cannot grasp;
it has inner light,

even from a distance-

and charges us,

even if we do not reach it,
into something else, which,

hardly sensing it,
we already are; a gesture waves us on
answering our own wave...
but what we feel is the wind

in our faces.

-Rainer Maria Rilke

Translated by Robert Bly

Sestina

September rain falls on the house.
In the failing light, the old grandmother
sits in the kitchen with the child
beside the Little Marvel Stove,
reading the jokes from the almanac,
laughing and talking to hide her tears.

She thinks that her equinoctial tears
and the rain that beats on the roof of the house
were both foretold by the almanac,
but only known to a grandmother.
The iron kettle sings on the stove.
She cuts some bread and says to the child,

It's time for tea now; but the child
is watching the teakettle's small hard tears
dance like mad on the hot black stove,
the way the rain must dance on the house.
Tidying up, the old grandmother
hangs up the clever almanac

on its string. Birdlike, the almanac
hovers half open above the child,
hovers above the old grandmother
and her teacup full of dark brown tears.
She shivers and says she thinks the house
feels chilly, and puts more wood in the stove.

It was to be, says the Marvel Stove.
I know what I know, says the almanac.
With crayons the child draws a rigid house
and a winding pathway. Then the child
puts in a man with buttons like tears
and shows it proudly to the grandmother.

But secretly, while the grandmother
busies herself about the stove,
the little moons fall down like tears
from between the pages of the almanac
into the flower bed the child
has carefully placed in the front of the house.

Time to plant tears, says the almanac.
The grandmother sings to the marvelous stove
and the child draws another inscrutable house.

-Elizabeth Bishop

Onofrio,

If you've never seen a jacaranda tree, you might want to google it. It's quite a sight, and knowing what it looks like helps in reading Endrezze's poem.

The Girl Who Loved the Sky

Outside the second grade room,
the jacaranda tree blossomed
into purple lanterns, the papery petals
drifted, darkening the windows.
Inside, the room smelled like glue.
The desks were made of yellowed wood,
the tops littered with eraser rubbings,
rulers, and big fat pencils.
Colored chalk meant special days.
The walls were covered with precise
bright tulips and charts with shiny stars
by certain names. There, I learned
how to make butter by shaking a jar
until the pale cream clotted
into one sweet mass. There, I learned
that numbers were fractious beasts
with dens like dim zeros. And there,
I met a blind girl who thought the sky
tasted like cold metal when it rained
and whose eyes were always covered
with the bruised petals of her lids.

She loved the formless sky, defined
only by sounds, or the cool umbrellas
of clouds. On hot, still days
we listened to the sky falling
like chalk dust. We heard the noon
whistle of the pig-mash factory,
smelled the sourness of home-bound men.

I had no father; she had no eyes;
we were best friends. The other girls
drew shaky hopscotch squares
on the dusty asphalt, talked about
pajama parties, weekend cookouts,
and parents who bought sleek-finned cars
Alone, we sat in the canvas swings,
our shoes digging into the sand, then pushing,
until we flew high over their heads,
our hands streaked with red rust
from the chains that kept us safe.

I was born blind, she said, an act of nature.
Sure, I thought, like birds born
without wings, trees without roots.
I didn't understand. The day she moved
I saw the world clearly: the sky
backed away from me like a departing father.
I sat under the jacaranda, catching
the petals in my palm, enclosing them
until my fist was another lantern
hiding a small and bitter flame.

-Anita Endrezze

Hello, Onofrio,

I'm glad you like the poems. I read your dialogue with W. Elliott. I'd all but decided not to continue it, out of a sort of kindness, I guess, quite possibly, misguided. So it will be interesting for me to see how far you and he are able to go.

Engrezze's poem is written after (in the mode of) Stevens', of course. I used to find Stevens cold; many do. I don't any longer. The Sexton fairy tale poems are part gruesome, part hilarious. Gluck, not so funny, ever. Bishop made her own kind of fairy story reality, sometimes: "Sestina." Do you know it?

Beautiful poem, you wrote. Nicholson is Australian. I believe he lives in New South Wales. I posted a couple of other poems of his. Do you have a favorite Francis Webb poem?

Pam,

And thanks to you too for sharing Stephen Dunn's Methodist Church poem, way back where - a tale sweetly told, and oh so true.

All,

Re: Ouroboros, from a previous post, if interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

I did a wee bit of research, finding less on the web than I'd anticipated, but I have discovered that Jung thought highly of them as trickster symbols (see Wikipedia). They go back to Egyptian mythology if I'm correct (Onfrio?), interested Plato, the early Christians, a PROMINENT SCIENTIST, they say.

Friend showed mye some surrealist ouroboro art--not to my taste, but.... I think I shall never be a fan of this mythical creature.

Hello Farnaz,

Methinks

From Barack to vedanta,
from bardo to beer brews;
from properties of quanta,
to the consciousness blues;
as the basilisk scuttles
like a god, so the thread
through verse and rebuttals
has intrepidly sped.

Thanks again for the leaven of verse you knead into the mix - Stevens' blackbirds and Endrezze's angels (my fave of this crop), Nicholson's Fellini, the faerie tales...the anthology grows.

Just for fun, take a look at John Mark Reynolds's essay and comments - he's taking quite a thrashing. Of 165 comments when I last looked, there *may* be 5 supportive ones.

One poster found an article he'd written some time ago - a prophecy. Check it out if you want a laugh:
http://tinyurl.com/br6ktr

The Reality of BO's Rhetoric

Barack Obama is his name,
Pres because of skin tone?
Because of the race game?
No,‘cause dead babies moan!!

Voting “moms and dads” of said life forms,
Yes, 70 million indeed they voted for
One BH Obama, as pro-abortion he conforms,
And now the "I" Majority rules life’s door!!!

Hi Persiflage,

YOU: Thus the impetus for some folks to seek seemingly impossible answers to timeless and mysterious questions.....outside the bounds of organized religion and beyond the ken of science.

I'm not entirely sure who you refer to here. Is it the eastern philosophies?

YOU: There is and can be only one timeless and unconditioned truth in my view - don't expect me to change my mind on that point.

And you know what this truth is, but it can not be expressed in words? Do I have that right? Or is it that you only know that this truth exists, but you don't know what it is yet, you just know what the right method of inquiry is to find it? I'm not being smart here, I'm seriously trying to clarify.

YOU: Without the meditation part of the practice, one will never know a thing beyond a conceptual kind of knowledge. The actual goal or realization of our fundamental nature (Suchness) will never be known.

If you say so. And apparently you do.
I believe that meditation and contemplative thought are the most important (though not the only) methods of inquiry into one's self and consciousness, but as far as far as declaring to it be the only path to understanding our fundamental nature, and as far as claiming to KNOW what our true fundamental nature is, these are no different to me than claims of knowing God.

YOU: And I still say Pam took the high road - from her perspective the whole thing was a crock and she said so. So be it....

And I showed much more than an open mind towards monism, and Buddhism, but called any claim of it being confirmed as the reality and the one true way to know the eternal truth, a crock. And I said it, and so be it. What's the difference? Does the high road mean all or nothing?

YOU: there is one clear and significant area of disagreement and correct if I'm wrong here - you don't believe in an underlying reality or fundamental essence that the Zennists refer to as the One Mind, whereas I do (THE timeless truth). Do I have that right?

I am open to the idea of "an underlying reality or fundamental essence that the Zennists refer to as the One Mind", I will always explore it contemplatively and scientifically, but I am also open to the possibility that no such "one mind" exists. Certainly the former is more interesting and exciting to explore, and looking at things this way can alter the way we interact with one another in a positive way, but I remain open minded to all possibilities. Quantum theory is where it's at these days. I don't know of any quantum theorists who could presume dualism based on what they see at work every day.

YOU: Anyway, I do have another famous Zen koan for you .... does a dog have the Buddha nature?

That's a very good question that I was getting to. I would use a non domesticated animal for the example, but it's a good question. But you asking me is like a Catholic asking me if dogs go to heaven. You tell me, it's your religion. Does a dog (wolf) have the buddha nature?

I Am in Need of Music

I am in need of music that would flow
Over my fretful, feeling fingertips,
Over my bitter-tainted, trembling lips,
With melody, deep, clear, and liquid-slow.
Oh, for the healing swaying, old and low,
Of some song sung to rest the tired dead,
A song to fall like water on my head,
And over quivering limbs, dream flushed to glow!

There is a magic made by melody:
A spell of rest, and quiet breath, and cool
Heart, that sinks through fading colors deep
To the subaqueous stillness of the sea,
And floats forever in a moon-green pool,
Held in the arms of rhythm and of sleep.

-Elizabeth Bishop

I think this is so brilliant, it's frightening. Not very cheering, though.

Gretel in Darkness

This is the world we wanted.
All who would have seen us dead
are dead. I hear the witch's cry
break in the moonlight through a sheet
of sugar: God rewards.
Her tongue shrivels into gas . . .

Now, far from women's arms
and memory of women, in our father's hut
we sleep, are never hungry.
Why do I not forget?
My father bars the door, bars harm
from this house, and it is years.

No one remembers. Even you, my brother,
summer afternoons you look at me as though
you meant to leave,
as though it never happened.
But I killed for you. I see armed firs,
the spires of that gleaming kiln--

Nights I turn to you to hold me
but you are not there.
Am I alone? Spies
hiss in the stillness, Hansel,
we are there still and it is real, real,
that black forest and the fire in earnest.

-Louise Glück

I'm pretty sure Sexton took her "Cinderella" from the Grimms Brothers' version, "Ashputtel." Here is a link to the story. Follow, if interested. Shocking, I must warn the initiated.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:neQEvP2Ih74J:www.grandpapencil.net/stories/grimm/pdf34.pdf+GRIMM+CINDERELLA+ASHPUTTEL&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Cinderella

You always read about it:
the plumber with the twelve children
who wins the Irish Sweepstakes.
From toilets to riches.
That story.

Or the nursemaid,
some luscious sweet from Denmark
who captures the oldest son's heart.
from diapers to Dior.
That story.

Or a milkman who serves the wealthy,
eggs, cream, butter, yogurt, milk,
the white truck like an ambulance
who goes into real estate
and makes a pile.
From homogenized to martinis at lunch.

Or the charwoman
who is on the bus when it cracks up
and collects enough from the insurance.
From mops to Bonwit Teller.
That story.

Once
the wife of a rich man was on her deathbed
and she said to her daughter Cinderella:
Be devout. Be good. Then I will smile
down from heaven in the seam of a cloud.
The man took another wife who had
two daughters, pretty enough
but with hearts like blackjacks.
Cinderella was their maid.
She slept on the sooty hearth each night
and walked around looking like Al Jolson.
Her father brought presents home from town,
jewels and gowns for the other women
but the twig of a tree for Cinderella.
She planted that twig on her mother's grave
and it grew to a tree where a white dove sat.
Whenever she wished for anything the dove
would drop it like an egg upon the ground.
The bird is important, my dears, so heed him.

PART II

Next came the ball, as you all know.
It was a marriage market.
The prince was looking for a wife.
All but Cinderella were preparing
and gussying up for the event.
Cinderella begged to go too.
Her stepmother threw a dish of lentils
into the cinders and said: Pick them
up in an hour and you shall go.
The white dove brought all his friends;
all the warm wings of the fatherland came,
and picked up the lentils in a jiffy.
No, Cinderella, said the stepmother,
you have no clothes and cannot dance.
That's the way with stepmothers.

Cinderella went to the tree at the grave
and cried forth like a gospel singer:
Mama! Mama! My turtledove,
send me to the prince's ball!
The bird dropped down a golden dress
and delicate little slippers.
Rather a large package for a simple bird.
So she went. Which is no surprise.
Her stepmother and sisters didn't
recognize her without her cinder face
and the prince took her hand on the spot
and danced with no other the whole day.

CONTINUED

As nightfall came she thought she'd better
get home. The prince walked her home
and she disappeared into the pigeon house
and although the prince took an axe and broke
it open she was gone. Back to her cinders.
These events repeated themselves for three days.
However on the third day the prince
covered the palace steps with cobbler's wax
and Cinderella's gold shoe stuck upon it.
Now he would find whom the shoe fit
and find his strange dancing girl for keeps.
He went to their house and the two sisters
were delighted because they had lovely feet.
The eldest went into a room to try the slipper on
but her big toe got in the way so she simply
sliced it off and put on the slipper.
The prince rode away with her until the white dove
told him to look at the blood pouring forth.
That is the way with amputations.
They just don't heal up like a wish.
The other sister cut off her heel
but the blood told as blood will.
The prince was getting tired.
He began to feel like a shoe salesman.
But he gave it one last try.
This time Cinderella fit into the shoe
like a love letter into its envelope.

At the wedding ceremony
the two sisters came to curry favor
and the white dove pecked their eyes out.
Two hollow spots were left
like soup spoons.

Cinderella and the prince
lived, they say, happily ever after,
like two dolls in a museum case
never bothered by diapers or dust,
never arguing over the timing of an egg,
never telling the same story twice,
never getting a middle-aged spread,
their darling smiles pasted on for eternity.
Regular Bobbsey Twins.
That story.

-Ann Sexton

Arminius,

Names are good.

We have a couple of stores around here
with a couple of hundred pretty good beers

Persiflage:

In mystical reverie have you found
What Teresa of Avila did expound?

Like the song through history that she sings
That love alone gives worth to all things?

Pseudo,

Of course nothing can match a good single malt.

Local microbreweries here in the Atlanta area are good but not exceptional. Up in East Tennessee, my old stomping grounds, there is a brewery that produces a really good beer and an exceptional porter. Can't remember the name, but could obtain it if you are interested. I have not heard of those that you mentioned, which is not surprising - most micros are quite local.

Arminius,

I do know of Arogant Bastard Ale. Pretty darn good stuff (not as good as a single malt, mind you), but what are your thoughts on your local micros?

Hi Timmy - you might have seen in a later post that the Sword of Damoclese is hanging over the heads of each and every one of us in the form of Father Time (Chronos), which has curiously been linked via Greek and Roman cultural cross-fertilization to mythical figures as disparate as Santa Claus (St. Nicholas) and the devil himself (although the devil is most closely allied to the fallen angel Samael (not Lucifer).

Anyway, all we've got is an unknown amount of time (and good health) - to do with as we will. Thus the impetus for some folks to seek seemingly impossible answers to timeless and mysterious questions.....outside the bounds of organized religion and beyond the ken of science.

My point was simply that the meditative techniques found in Vedanta and Buddhism have both provided successful methods and techniques for discovering this 'timeless' truth. That was really all I had to say on the matter. You disagreed that this was THE timeless truth, but that there were others - and on that we will disagree.

There is and can be only one timeless and unconditioned truth in my view - don't expect me to change my mind on that point.

Without the meditation part of the practice, one will never know a thing beyond a conceptual kind of knowledge. The actual goal or realization of our fundamental nature (Suchness) will never be known.

Ann Bolte Taylor had a profound experience, as did John Wren-Lewis (did you read that link?). How they compare to meditative breakthroughs is beyond this conversation, but they were life-altering.

Whatever we say here is an indirect referencing of the conceptual kind, and can't be anything beyond that. But that is the nature of language and conversation......

Ergo, life 'in the balance' is the essence of time itself.....as the 13th century Japanese Zen monk Dogen said, Being is time, and time is Being.

I have no doubt you will speak your mind now and in the future, and will not pull any punches - I'm down with that. And I still say Pam took the high road - from her perspective the whole thing was a crock and she said so. So be it....

As we speak now, it seems more and more clear to me that we never disagreed on very much in the first place.

And to repeat myself - there is one clear and significant area of disagreement and correct if I'm wrong here - you don't believe in an underlying reality or fundamental essence that the Zennists refer to as the One Mind, whereas I do (THE timeless truth). Do I have that right?

Anyway, I do have another famous Zen koan for you .... does a dog have the Buddha nature?

Until next time.....

Timmy,

O so heavy say they as truth renown
But I find reason's yoke a crown

For when well premised it leads to truth
And for wide held falseness has no ruth

My Great Teacher, once said he
That the truth shall make you free

Pseudo,

Some decent microbreweries down here, good, but not exceptional.

Now for my all-time favorite, from a mid-size blessed brewery in California: Arrogant Bastard Ale. Yes, I spelled that right! Its motto is "You're Not Worthy", and they are correct. The first sip is like the first sip of a great single malt scotch. Unbelievable. Check out their web site - it's a hoot.

Arminius,

"Most American beer is swill - but there are some gems here."

Ever try Dogfish Head Raison d'Etre? Nice Delaware microbrew that gets around the East Coast. Not sure it gets down your way. They do another one called Midas Touch, derived from an old amphora from a kings burial that had identifiable ingredients for the Royal Mead from three thousand years ago or so. There must be some good micros down your way. Any hints?

So what's the sound of one hand clapping?
A butterfly, wings quietly flapping?
The Sounds of Silence we must pursue
For there we find sad roads but true...

Hello Darkness my old friend
I've come to talk with you again...

Pseudo,

"Thoughts of scrapping Reasons' o so heavy yoke"

I am blissfully ignorant of any such yoke.
But is does rhyme so well it hardly matters if there is one or isn't.

Some might ask what's the sound of one hand clapping.
Others at the Sound of Silence wonder what just happened.

Some might swim in Eastern mystical seas
Others with Orthodox Mystics be at ease

Some might better like the Sound of Science
And meet mystical ways with pure defiance

Persiflage,

The confusion of Bacchus the wino and Dionysus of the wild rituals endures. The Greeks appreciated that there are many sides to things like this, that emotions, ideas, and symbols get all mixed up. Romans tended to be more straightforward. There is nothing overtly sexual about gladiatorial combat. Yeah, I know about the stories about women in the galleries.... but that is an unfortunate side effect. One can receive subtlety from Roman culture, but not the depth of perception that the Greeks offer. Romans never did figure that out. There were no great Roman dramatists, nor even a historian to even come close to Thucydides. Lyric poets, yes, and even one epic poet. But no Plato, although Marcus Aurelius was pretty damn good - even the Greeks did not have a true warrior-philosopher-ruler.

Of course sports figures, and celebrities in general, have no lack of groupies to share their beds. What else is new?

Japanese brew - I had a Kirin today. Pretty good stuff. And some of finest brews of today are due to Belgian monks. All that Anheuser-Bush crap about beer reaching its peak in a few weeks is garbage - many great beers are aged in wooden casks for a year or two. Most American beer is swill - but there are some gems here.

"Can I have your answer to the same question now? Is it much ado about nothing? Do you know the sound of one hand clapping? Is there an answer at all? Is it even a valid question?"

I think it is a question aiming to provoke
Thoughts of scrapping Reasons' o so heavy yoke

And whether you find peace out of mind
Depends on whether you really like the line

Arminius,

You to me:
"I keep forgetting that you are a denizen of Oz!"

Yes, I'm the scarecrow.

You to me:
"Sorry, but my humble Celtic self can find no sure footing in this eastern theology. Too much western individuality in me. No criticism implied."

No need to apologise there, Claymorist. As two-thirds brew-and-dram-fond Celt myself (sorry, bit of sassenach in the mix) I can relate. Far from bodhi, me, though I have enormous respect for the genuine lamas, gurus, and sages, Lao-Tzu in particular. From him I have learned much, even only through the dark glass of translation.

Keep an eye out for the Coopers brews. If they find a way to your neck of the hemispheres, you will indeed be blessed.

Persiflage,

Part two

YOU: "You pointed out that your melting pot methodology was superior to the smelting pot method, where a little pure gold can be mined (for one's personal use) out of the myriad of philosophies and wisdom traditions and scientific discoveries that are available to all"

If you want to call it a smelting pot I don't mind. But what you describe above is not inferior to my melting pot, it is my melting pot. Let's just call it the smelting pot from now on. I like that. But if you think what I was talking about was anything different from what you describe above, you had me wrong.

YOU: "Oddly, your questions often sound like declarative if not argumentative statements, if you'll read through a sampling of your various posts over the last few weeks"

Some of them are argumentative statements. This is a common debating practice that we are all guilty of because it can be fruitful in shedding light on certain assertions. This is not a debate where I am making the assertions. I am questioning assertions made, and I thought that was supposed to be encouraged.

YOU: The Sword of Damacles in this instance refers metaphoically to 'life in the balance'. Some people are driven to pursue seemingly impossible goals, like discovering the true basis for existence, if there is such a thing....when an accumulation of knowledge is insufficient for these idiots, and they soon began tilting at windmills as well. Rational skepticism be damned!

How does this apply to me?

Here's to a more equitable conversation in the future.

It's going to be tough if you think I am lying about what I believe. But here's hopin.

Persiflage,

YOU: Timmy, at a personal level, what you believe or don't believe doesn't matter a lick. How could it?

Agreed.

YOU: Pam took the high road because she just called it nonsense and that was the end of it - she was in and out of the discussion just that fast - and toward the end of it at that.

This is really funny. You'd prefer I just call your philosophy nonsense and dismiss it outright, as opposed to me saying "hey I'm down with monism, Persiflage, in fact here's a link to a video that shows how I come to this philosophy scientifically".??? I took the low road by letting you know that I actually consider monism to be a plausible reality and I dig it, but then when I show skepticism towards some of the tenets, by asking questions, I get labeled a naysayer and a contrarian?

YOU: "You on the other hand claimed to believe some things about the topic under discussion, while being downright offended by other parts

You are getting way out of line. "Claimed to believe?" I should end this discussion right here and now. Are you kidding me? I cry every time I watch that video I shared with you. I cry just thinking about it too deeply. If you think that I am being dishonest about what I believe, stop reading and commenting on my posts. This particular conversation did not start with me addressing you.

And for the record, nothing about vedanta offends me.
People seeing any one philosophy as the eternal truth kinda does.
Especially when you couldn't pay me enough to live in the country where it is most predominantly practiced. My class doesn't live well there. And I'm not blaming vedanta for the caste system. I'm saying it's prevalent parctice didn't prevent it.

YOU: "the melting pot was not large enough to accomodate the idea of 'primal awareness' as one example, so out it went into the trash heap of preposterous ideas"

Absolute nonsense. I am extremely interested in primal awareness. I meditate almost every day. And I have never talked about "my' melting pot. The only melting pot I have ever talked about is one which society decides what stays in and what gets discarded. Not me.

Arminius - I'm wondering if there's some confusion as regards Bacchus and a history of death and sacrificial rituals. See the link below in the event that the bloody side of Bacchanalia might be confused with the Priapian side of things.

On the other hand, the rituals of the Aztec and Inca, not to mention the Roman gladiator culture (thinking now of Russell Crowe) fused sex and death in a big way. This was not a recap of the Greek Elusinian mysteries, that famously coupled sex and deliverance (of the spiritual kind).

Surely matadors have no problems getting laid either......but by the time we get to the modern sports arena, we're arrived at pure metaphor! Lots of sex both before and after daybreak .....

The Yingling Dark is almost gone......and Monday morning beckons. And Arminius, Japanese beer is pretty damned good - brewed by celibate Zen monks, so they say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_little_death

Onofrio,

I keep forgetting that you are a denizen of Oz!

Tooheys is a damn good brew. Coopers I have never found here.

Onofrio,

Yes, my reference was to 'Life of Brian'.

Sorry, but my humble Celtic self can find no sure footing in this eastern theology. Too much western individuality in me. No criticism implied.

Arminius,

PS enjoy your beer! I must wait for nightfall for mine, down here in the Fundament. It will be a Tooheys (in the fridge), though I prefer Coopers.

What's that? I think I can hear a chorus of Bruces cranking up...

Iiiiiiimanuel Kant was a real pissant...

Arminius:

Vous:
"The Romans tended to look on the 'Bright Side of Life'. Wine-swilling cupids and other crap."

I realise you are critiquing Romanising putti-rife prettification here, Arminius.

I take your reference to 'Bright Side of Life' as a gloriously Brianic irony. A real slap-and-tickle - nay e'en a hoot - all that cross-raising, Gaul-slaughtering, and colossal Russellcrowe-ing!

Crucifixion?

Onofrio,

Well, I had to laugh. Here I am, trying like hell to turn the topic from endless parades of eastern nothingness and one-hand-clapping into something tangible and western - and I get breakfast cereal! Sugar-coated Yeats indeed! Quite a coup, there. Meanwhile, another western beer for me. Maybe another day, another thread.

Arminius,

I salute your Greekliness. Zesta! And I appreciate your note of caution re the sanguinary decapotential of gay abandon. I cleave back to Apollo's *know thyself* and *moderation in all things*...including moderation ;)

I've always thought *Yeats* sounds like some nourishing breakfast food... "Eat up all yer Yeats - makes you grow big and strong."

Yeats with milk-of-kindness - a great way to start the day!

CLEARTHINKING:

YOU: "Part of the method of Vedanta REQUIRES a Guru/student relationship - an essential element of Vedanta. This method allows one to diminish the arrogance and ego while still having trust. Trust in the teacher and teaching is very important while a student is struggling to learn. In Vedanta this "trust" (shraddha) replaces "faith".

Yes, unfortunately I do see a striking similarity to "faith" here.
First you must believe, only then with the truth be revealed to you, after you believe. Because the truth can not be explained in words. You have to believe it first. Surrender yourself to it. You must accept that your natural skepticism is just arrogance and ego.

YOU: "But the approach of the scientific method has been subject and object as being separate. This is perfectly fine until the subject becomes the self. In THIS specific situation (which is very significant situation) the microscope and telescope won't work"

Yes they will. Contemplative thought alone could never have told me certain important things about myself, like that my feelings of altruism are inherited through natural selection by all social animals. Only science could tell me this about myself. Thiis is just one tiny example. The two go hand in hand. Science and contemplative thought. Neither gets in the way of the other, in fact they work incredibly well together.

YOU: So if we apply a rational skeptical method to understanding consciousness you would get something like Vedanta.

The last word in that sentence could be replaced by the word "science" and it would still apply. Contemplative thought is always involved in science.

YOU: Hinduism and Vedanta are not equivalent.

I'm aware. I simply point out that the caste system developed in a country where most of the inhabitants are raised in a vedanta system of belief. I know that the caste system did not come from Islam. I'm just saying that this enlightening philosophy of vedanta has been no more successful at getting people to all treat each other as one, than any other human invented philosophy or religion. We should keep looking, not settle on vedanta.

Persiflage,

"The Bacchanalia does sound like great fun, no?"

Be careful what you wish for. Bacchus is the fun side of Dionysus. The other side is the ritual madness of Dionysus, sometimes horribly bloodthirsty. Read the play. The Greeks covered all sides of things. The Romans tended to look on the 'Bright Side of Life'. Wine-swilling cupids and other crap.

I saw a staring virgin stand
Where holy Dionysus died,
And tear the heart out of his side,
And lay the heart upon her hand
And bear that beating heart away;
And then did all the Muses sing
Of Magnus Annus at the spring,
As though God's death were but a play.

Another Troy must rise and set,
Another lineage feed the crow,
Another Argo's painted prow
Drive to a flashier bauble yet.
The Roman Empire stood appalled:
It dropped the reins of peace and war
When that fierce virgin and her Star
Out of the fabulous darkness called.
--------------------------------------------------
From 'Two Songs from a Play', W B Yeats, June 1927

Arminius - let us not forget that Dionysus was engendered and nurtured by the great god Pan (Hermes), who also gave us satyrs and nymphs. Thus we have wine, the procreative arts, the mighty Priapian Way, and all the time in the world - which unfortunately has it's limits (Kronos was finally given the watch to wind).

Certain esoteric myths proclaim that we return to the world over and over again, because it's so damned much fun...life on Olympus has it's ups and downs and intrigues, but does get tedious after an eon or two.

The Bacchanalia does sound like great fun, no? And all the hummus you can eat......

Queen Victoria was an overdressed hottie that knew a thing or two.
__________

Onofrio - bring it on....we all need a mythical/lyrical/metaphorical uplift about now!

Persiflage

Thou:
"My favorite god is Dionysis"

Ah, much misunderstood that more-than-winebibber, eh friend Venerable?

Too often forgot that he, as enabler of veritas, gave us tragedy and satire along with his frenzies.

Destroyer and begetter of worlds - Shiva Nataraja.

And not-to-be-forgot: the Titan-torn Zagreus, who strives for home against-and-with the titanic ashes of our origins.

I feel an attack of Yeats...

i.e. that *bright side of life* extolled so merrily, in near unison, a thread or more ago.

Echoes of Pythons - Delphic, Brianic,

and Ouroboric maw titanic

Persiflage:
"And still don't know the sound of one hand clapping........"

Timmy:
"It's funny though how people who ask the "one hand clapping" question of another, usually ask it in a tone that sounds like they know the answer."

Pseudo:
"Is contemplating the sound of one hand clapping like making much ado about nothing?"

Gentlemen, as I've said afore, I can clap with one hand, you know, applause-like. The sound is softer than a standard dual-impact clap, but louder than snapping the fingers.

A Middle Way, in fact...and fancy.

How zen shall vee liff?

convert all your sounds of woe, into hey nonny nonny...

Persiflage,

If you want a good portrait of Dionysus, read Euripides' 'The Bacchae'. It will turn your stomach.

If you want some Greek anti-war plays, first read Aristophanes' 'Lysistrata'. Whatever you do, NEVER read a Victorian translation. It is unbelievably bawdy - in a former lifetime, I read much of it in the Greek, and know this is gloriously true. It is hysterically funny, and still timely.

Next, read Euripides' 'The Trojan Women'. That will rip out your heart and stomp it flat. There is a movie version, but terribly hard to find.

Arminius - Ah yes - from the Great War to end all wars. It is a salutation to life and death.

My favorite god is Dionysis - who gives us time, the true Sword of Damocles. What will we do with it?

War as a metaphor for life was never better done than in the great Indian spiritual saga, the Bhagavad Gita. This is a short work, and one that has universal appeal, in my humble opinion.

Would that war were only a metaphor. I've been there and done that......

Persiflage.

Well, then, if we would lament, let us lament for all of us:

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)

CCNL:

"And after 367 commentaries, we still fit into a sugar cube weighing 500 million tons."

And would it sweeten a 500 trillion ton cup of coffee?

Dear Pseudo,

"Is contemplating the sound of one hand clapping like making much ado about nothing?"

Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know. I try to keep an open mind.
It's funny though how people who ask the "one hand clapping" question of another, usually ask it in a tone that sounds like they know the answer.

Can I have your answer to the same question now? Is it much ado about nothing? Do you know the sound of one hand clapping? Is there an answer at all? Is it even a valid question?

Arminius - indeed! And the sweetness of youth turns as the wormhole of time turns.......

Spring and Fall: To a Young Child

Margaret, are you grieving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leaves, like the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Ah! as the heart grows older
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And yet you will weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name:
Sorrow's springs are the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed:
It is the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for.

Gerald Manley Hopkins -

Persiflage,

"Thanks CCNL - and if the mighty Ouroborus has to take a leak?"

Oh, worse - what happens if the tail-consuming Wurm gets hungry, and suffers from sugar-shock?

Thanks CCNL - and if the mighty Ouroborus has to take a leak?

And after 367 commentaries, we still fit into a sugar cube weighing 500 million tons.

Timmy2,

Gurus of Vedanta are NOT doing armchair philosophy. They are living/becoming the philosophy. They have given up everything (or are trying to give up), including their name, material possesions, family ties etc. Of course there are some phoney gurus, but that doesn't mean they are all fake. Part of the method of Vedanta REQUIRES a Guru/student relationship - an essential element of Vedanta. This method allows one to diminish the arrogance and ego while still having trust. Trust in the teacher and teaching is very important while a student is struggling to learn. In Vedanta this "trust" (shraddha) replaces "faith". That is why just going to lectures or reading books feels like armchair philosophy.

I had said earlier that science presumes dualism. This may be better stated that dualism is inherent in experimental science as we practice it today. The underlying rational skepticism is not inherently dualistic. But the approach of the scientific method has been subject and object as being separate. This is perfectly fine until the subject becomes the self. In THIS specific situation (which is very significant situation) the microscope and telescope won't work. The "eye" and awareness behind the eyepiece on one end of the instrument can't look at itself on the other. So if we apply a rational skeptical method to understanding consciousness you would get something like Vedanta.

Also, the caste system of Hinduism has been corrupted and is now often used for exploitation. But remember, Hinduism is much bigger than Vedanta in that it is meant for all segments of society and all types of people. This makes it messy and constantly in need of maintanence and reform. Vedanta is for people who come to it on their own if they are interested in or have the capacity for this kind of philosophy. Hinduism and Vedanta are not equivalent.

Timmy, at a personal level, what you believe or don't believe doesn't matter a lick. How could it? This is cyberspace. Pam took the high road because she just called it nonsense and that was the end of it - she was in and out of the discussion just that fast - and toward the end of it at that.

You on the other hand claimed to believe some things about the topic under discussion, while being downright offended by other parts - the melting pot was not large enough to accomodate the idea of 'primal awareness' as one example, so out it went into the trash heap of preposterous ideas.

As for myself, I was just putting ideas out there that related directly to the philosophy of Vedanta and Buddhism - both of which share a common non-dual theme. I've actually discussed other ideas at other times, and more than likely, the topic here won't be re-visited for a good long while!

You pointed out that your melting pot methodology was superior to the smelting pot method, where a little pure gold can be mined (for one's personal use) out of the myriad of philosophies and wisdom traditions and scientific discoveries that are available to all.

Timmy, I've availed myself of the melting pot, and was here trying to share a bit of pure gold - but you weren't having any of this fool's gold and that much was clear. Oddly, your questions often sound like declarative if not argumentative statements, if you'll read through a sampling of your various posts over the last few weeks.

The Sword of Damacles in this instance refers metaphoically to 'life in the balance'. Some people are driven to pursue seemingly impossible goals, like discovering the true basis for existence, if there is such a thing....when an accumulation of knowledge is insufficient for these idiots, and they soon began tilting at windmills as well. Rational skepticism be damned!

Here I refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - where in the second half of life a person's interests pertain more and more to what are referred to as 'peak experiences' and the very long process of self-actualization. But that's for another discussion.

Suffice it to say that Vedanta and Buddhism might figure into that equation, if a person is 'spiritually inclined' but otherwise non-religious. You do understand that part well enough. Otherwise, I don't see you as particularly heretical, although we'd both be burned at the stake for having this discussion back in Giordano Bruno's day. Good thing I left the Catholic Church at age 17! Been on the road ever since.

And still don't know the sound of one hand clapping........

Here's to a more equitable conversation in the future.

Sorry. that's:

"Make me one with everything."

Persiflage et al.:

Did you hear the one about when the Dalai Lama came to New York to address the General Assembly and stopped to get a hot dog? The street vendor asked "What d' ya want on it chief?" and the Dalai Lama replied with a smile: "Make one with everything."

Dear Timmy:

Is contemplating the sound of one hand clapping like making much ado about nothing?

Persiflage,

YOU: "Timmy, maybe it's just me, but for a person that's been wounded by the slings and arrows of the spiritually self-righteous, you seem a wee bit haughty in the aftermath"

Thank you for that very "encouraging" response to rational skepticism.
Does this go for Pam too? Is she haughty? Or is she exempt because she was entirely dismissive, where I actually went with you part of the way, but would then not fully submit to the eternal truth of monism?

Wounded?
It is the spiritually self righteous who have been wounded by my slings and arrows, not the other way around. I promise you I remain unscathed.

As much as I have studied Buddhiam and Vedanta, and as much as I encourage others to do so, and as much as I practice yoga and meditation, I guess shall always be incomplete and lost in your eyes until I accept the eternal truth of monism. So be it.

YOU: "but you have put your own particular interpretive stamp on what's been said here, and I'm not sure you've taken the high road.

Is the high road full submission to the eternal truth of monism? It seems this is the only response that will satisfy you.

My own particular interpretive stamp? How can this be the case when I have only asked questions? It's not my fault my questions are tough. It's not my fault you are not rationally skeptical about vedanta as I am, but rather sold on it hook line and sinker. You can't call the asking of questions, "putting ones own interpretive stamp on something". They're just questions.

YOU: The Sword of Damocles cuts both ways..... BTW, what IS the sound of one hand clapping?

Ah, those two age old talking points.
So irrelevant.
So haughty.

Perhaps it is you who has been wounded by rational skepticism of your faith.

Timmy, maybe it's just me, but for a person that's been wounded by the slings and arrows of the spiritually self-righteous, you seem a wee bit haughty in the aftermath.

Surely that's a misperception - but you have put your own particular interpretive stamp on what's been said here, and I'm not sure you've taken the high road. The Sword of Damocles cuts both ways.....

BTW, what IS the sound of one hand clapping?

Persiflage, and other truth knowers,

Thank you all for the reassurance that my couch real. Whew. I was so frightened there for a while, like a child in the dark woods. lol.

PERSIFLAGE: "why do you suppose all those Zennists spend years doing zazen? To realize the truth as elucidated below by the great Huang Po"

Ah yes, "the truth". The eternal truth as elucidated by the great one.
Are the ones who are truly "lost", those without this truth?
Or are the truly lost individuals the ones in constant search of eternal truth?

Hung po said: "I advise you, O students of the Truth
To exert yourselves in the proper direction"

Ah yes. The PROPPER direction. As opposed to all of those improper directions that are not vedanta. If you want to be proper, be a vedantist. The only path to truth. The only true understanding of consciousness. All others are deluded.

Lao Tzu said: The true meaning of life can never be put into words.

Ah yes. The true meaning of life. We have it in vedanta. But we can not describe it in words. You must follow the one and only proper direction if you want it. You must undelude yourself and see the truth of Brahma. You are incomplete until you accept the proper way. You are a lost child. flailing. Incomplete. To be pitied.

You know what else can't be put into words?
Thomas Baum's experience with God that confirmed the trinity.
You know who else thinks that I am lost and incomplete without their eternal truth? Christians.

I am a seeker of knowledge, not of eternal truth. I don't believe the latter exists. I don't believe it is helpful to believe that such a thing does exist. I believe in being entirely open minded. This means accepting both dualism and monism as possible realities.

CLEARTHINKING says that rational skepticism is not only allowed in vedanta but encouraged. Sure doesn't feel that way. It seems that Persiflage and Onofrio think that "encouraged" is spelled "mocked".

You know who else mocks rational skeptics?
Christians.

You guys think I'm a contrarian? Try selling Pam on this eternal truth you speak of. I give a lot more latitude on this stuff that she does.

Can you show me where my skepticism has been irrational, or show me where it has been encouraged, rather than mocked and condescended to? Is calling someone a naysayer and a contrarian, encouragement, or calling out a heretic?

Mystical thinking...magical thinking...what's the difference?

All just a bunch of self-important humans thinking that humanity is so wonderful that it must be part of some "ultimate meaning."

Silly, IMO.

And another good link for folks that have interest:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

Farnaz - here's another link to browse through at your leisure. The complete works of Vivekananda.

I have friends that have followed his Avaita inspired philosophy for many years.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_5/Writings:_Prose_and_Poems(Original_and_Translated)/The_Advaita_Ashrama,_Himalayas

Hi Onofrio - loved your latest!

Timmy, you're a pretty creative songster - a sincere congratulations!

However, Meister Onofrio remains the peripatetic master of the moving semantic highware act - like I told you, without a net. A question of balance, or knowing when not to move?

...the road to Mt. Reason is cluttered with the shambling wraiths of the living and the dead, not a one given to verisimilitude - no, not a one will tell you the truth.....

Some great discussion here. Too much to read. Too much to comment on, so I'll just add a quotation from Lao Tzu.

The true meaning of life can never be put into words.
The words that you use to explain life are words and nothing more.
Whether you see the secret of life calmly and cooly
Or you see the surface of life with passion,
The secret and the surface are different views of the same thing.
-- Lao Tzu (my favourite fictional philosopher)

soon sun will rise

on pedantvedantic duellists

shan't I, shan't I, shan't I

find unconsciousness

on that unreal couch

Hi Farnaz - I'm up at 6AM and thinking that will not last long - the center will not hold. But I did read the Longenbach review with interest, regarding the W. Stevens view of the necessity of Order - that must nevertheless remain unspoken and ever subject to change. This, in utter contrast to the Ramon Fernadez character.

Stevens was not only an independent thinker, but he seems to have intuitively understood and anticipated the necessity (inevitability?) of chaos as a creative force.

These days, chaos and complexity are all the scientific rage! Stevens was a pretty remarkable guy for an insurance saleman.

__________________

Timmy - of course your couch is real....so don't go giving it to Goodwill. Any Zen master would give you a whack for thinking otherwise - on the other hand, why do you suppose all those Zennists spend years doing zazen? To realize the truth as elucidated below by the great Huang Po.
...............

Where the true is left to itself,
There is nothing false in it, which is Mind itself.
When Mind in itself is not liberated from the false,
There is nothing true, nowhere is the true to be found.

A conscious being alone understands what is meant by "moving";
To those not endowed with consciousness, the moving is unintelligible;
If you exercise yourself in the practice of keeping your mind unmoved, [i.e. in a quietistic meditation],
The immovable you gain is that of one who has no consciousness.

If you are desirous for the truly immovable,
The immovable is in the moving itself,
And this immovable is the [truly] immovable one;
There is no seed of Buddhahood where there is no consciousness.

Mark well how varied are aspects [of the immovable one],
And know that the first reality is immovable;
Only when this insight is attained,
The true working of Suchness is understood.

I advise you, O students of the Truth
To exert yourselves in the proper direction;
Do not in the teaching of the Mahayana
Commit the fault of clinging to the relative knowledge of birth and death.

Clearthinking,

YOU: "It turns out that the problem is not your perception of the reality of the "couch", it is the problem of the correct understanding of "you".

Says you. You are telling me I have a problem, but I don't think that I do. Why do you think I do? How am I misunderstanding myself?

YOU: "Induction and science are extremely good, but not perfect and with limits. And we are talking about some pretty high goals here like ulitimate truth or reality"

I don't believe there is such a thing as ultimate truth or reality. I've seen no evidence to suggest there would be such a thing.

YOU: The key is always being very clear in what we mean when we discuss "consciousness" or "I".

I don't think anyone is clear on the nature of consciousness and "I". I've read the vedanta explanations, and they are interesting, but far from conclusive, and in fact, quite far fetched.

YOU: If you try to be truly skeptical, you realize that without a full understanding of these, you are just doing armchair philosophy.

We are all in this boat. Gurus and all.

YOU: But with a full understanding of "consciousness" the other questions become irrelevant.

Yeah but who has a full understanding of consciousness? Sure vedanta can make up its own definition and have a full understanding of that, but it's still armchair philosophy.

I'm open, I'm interested, I continue to study, but so far I haven't seen anything enlightening that I haven't gotten first from science and my own contemplative thinking aided by the latest scientific information, which absolutely does not presume dualism. I see no limitations to this method of inquiry.

And if it is limited, and vedanta can supposedly transcend those apparent limitations of science and induction, and bring inner peace, I find it hard to correlate that claim with India's caste system, which is not very good advertising for the enlightenment powers of vedanta.

Intervista
Federico Fellini 1920–1993

Maestro, lover, dreaming poet,
Must we say farewell just now?
Here on this uncertain street
Of a tawdry century
You encompassed multitudes,
From the fountain’s quietude
To a seaside ecstasy.

Trumpets at the darkened gates?
But how are we, who trust you still,
Beyond the failings that we share,
To live without your gaiety,
Except that in film flickering
And in Giulietta’s eyes
We know your passion will be strong.

Soon to sawdust you must drop
And circus clowns will hang their heads,
But while you live the world seems good,
For a pure heart brings such grace
And mischief that shows kindliness.
Stay to see our wretchedness
You maker of the marvellous!

But stillness is approaching now,
Tender, as this last spool spins
To silence in unending night.
Ciao, dear artist. May you slip
Quickly to that other side
Behind the screen, and leave us with a smile
Whose joy is deep, whose laughter was so wise.

-Peter Nicholson

Timmy2,

You sound very reasonable so I am sorry to hear you getting exasperated. I am not trying to get you to admit the "superiority" of Vedanta. The intellectually interesting points that make me persist are:

1) The couch IS real. Vedanta does not deny the existence of anything. There is only one reality (it would be silly to claim nondualism and 2 realities) The issue is trying to understand the relationship between "you" and the "couch". It turns out that the problem is not your perception of the reality of the "couch", it is the problem of the correct understanding of "you".

2) The monism vs. dualism question is essential. I certainly live everyday like a dualist, but that's really an oversimplification. To truly "understand" monism means you live and become monism. What does "become" monist mean? It means to take "actionless action" and "to always act with the spirit of sacrifice". There is a lot that gets lost in translation from sanskrit. Also, I am not a swami, guru, or enlightened. I don't know if this helps, but these are difficult ideas to discuss on a blog.

3) Induction and its limits have been discussed thoroughly in western philosophy. Induction and science are extremely good, but not perfect and with limits. And we are talking about some pretty high goals here like ulitimate truth or reality.

4) The key is always being very clear in what we mean when we discuss "consciousness" or "I". If you try to be truly skeptical, you realize that without a full understanding of these, you are just doing armchair philosophy. But with a full understanding of "consciousness" the other questions become irrelevant. For example, does "consciousness" begin with me and die with me once? Great question for armchair philosophy; but the best approach is to truly understand what "consciousness" or "me" mean, and the question becomes irrelevant.

Pseudo said: BTW, "Levity in Science" is best sung to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies" if you really want to get into the spirit.

To the tune of "The ballad of Jed Clampett" (Beverly Hillbillies Theme)

Gonna tell ya story bout a wave of energy
The building block of life, so it was said to be
But then one day when I was shootin at some food
The quantum man said shootin yerself is pretty rude

Dumb that is
suicidal
plumb denial

Well the next thing you know we see that nothin's really real
A rope can be a snake, it all depends on how you feel
If you want true happiness you'll dream of floatin free
And forget about your dreams of a home in Beverley

Hills that is
Swimming pools
Movies stars

The Energy Wave Hillbillies! Yeeehawww

Persiflage,

YOU: As for me, if and when I believe a particular idea or philosophy has real value and true merit, I try to provide a concrete examples or links for clarification and support.

I am down with that. That's why I did it with the link I provided. But most of my other points are just my opinion about how people should not look to any one religion or philosophy as "the way" but rather explore the sum total of human wisdom and certainly not chose to exclude science or reason from the process of developing your own philosophy based on all of the information available. There are no links to provide for that. It's just my 2 cents.

So why am I a contrarian? Did my questions about why I need to see my couch as not real, exceed rational skepticism, which CLEARTHINKING tells me is allowed in vedanta?

YOU: "There are few extemporizors that are able hold an audience in thrall like the indubitable Onofrio - without a net, so to speak"

Speak for yourself on that opinion.

Hi Clearthinking,

Part two,

YOU: It may feel like religion at times because you are not just inquiring into things, but also inquiring the nature of consciousness, existence, bliss, morals, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, politics, social issues, justice - complete philosophy and knowledge.

I do all of these things. How do you see me resisting any of these thoughts? I practice yoga, I meditate, and I spend more of my day in contemplative thought than anyone I know. The only thing I haven't done is admit that my couch isn't real. You all want me to do that, or I am a contrarian and a naysayer.

YOU: Vedanta: you may not like it; you may not get it; but it can't hurt you.

Arrrghh!
one more time.
I DIDN'T SAY I DIDN'T LIKE IT. IN FACT I SAID I DID LIKE IT.
I DIDN' SAY I DIDN'T GET IT. I DO GET IT.
I DIDN'T EVER SHOW FEAR OF IT HURTING ME OR CALLING IT A RELIGION.

I dig it. I just won't admit that my couch isn't real in the world that I have to live in. Rocks are real, and so is my couch. You can think that this means that I don't get vedanta if you like, I don't mind. I also don't mind at all if you want to give me some vedanta lessons to help me see why I need to think of my couch as not real. You'll not find a more open minded student.

YOU: Western philosophy and science can make you a better intellectual, but Vedanta can potentially make you a better person.

This is an extremely biassed statement and this is the kind of "our way is the right and true way" that I object to. Not the philosophy of monism itself. I dig monism, but there is absolutely no proof that either monism or dualism is the reality. So I keep an open mind about it. It seems very much to me like it is you and Persiflage that are close minded to the possibility of dualism, or the possibility that our consciousnes is born with us once, and dies with us once.

Hi Clearthinking,

YOU: If you learn Vedanta you don't learn the answer, you learn the method to get to the answer.

Answer to what?

YOU: You have to do the rest. The method allows/expects rational skepticism.

As does science and induction.

YOU: Science is the best method for studying the universe, but presumes dualism.

It assumes nothing. Show me a definition of the scientific method that notes the presumption of dualism? At any rate, my scientific method, and induction, most certainly does not presume dualism.

YOU: BUT if the subject of inquiry is you yourself by yourself, then what? Telescopes and microscopes won't help.

Of course they will HELP.

YOU: The method for inquiring /knowing /understanding /experiencing your Self (Atman) will require meditation; control of senses,mind and intellect; etc...

Absolutely. Yes. Along with the information from the telescopes and microscopes, meditation; control of senses, mind and intellect; etc are all methods of inquiry. Neither gets in the way of the other. I practice all of these things along with my science.

YOU: This is the method of Vedanta. It is not "religion" in any sense of the word.

I know. As I said to Persiflage, my nickname for vedanta is "the original atheism. I get it. I dig it. All I am doing is being rationally skeptical, which is apparently allowed, and I'm being called a contrarian by Persiflage, so apparently rational skepticism is not allowed. It sure doesn't feel like it.

Persiflage,

Are you still there? If so, check out the link on Stevens. There was a real Ramon Fernandez--most people don't know this. I'm not sure I agree with the critics' interpretations of his significance, but he did exist, and my guess is Stevens intended for us to know that.

Timmy sez -

"I tell people to look at all philosophies and religions with an open mind and make your own philosophy our of the great melting pot of human wisdom, and you tell people to check out Buddhism and Vedanta. See the difference?"

As for me, if and when I believe a particular idea or philosophy has real value and true merit, I try to provide a concrete examples or links for clarification and support. I've done so many a time - long before this particular discussion and probably into the future. That's my style on this thread.

I did appreciate and use the particular link that you provided with Jill Bolte Taylor and can only recommend that you do more of this to support the point or points that you're making. There are few extemporizors that are able hold an audience in thrall like the indubitable Onofrio - without a net, so to speak.

And yes, I do see the difference of which you speak...

PS. I felt I could get away with the guitar player remark - as a guitar player. Lighten up!!
It's only a G chord...

Pseudo,

"It just has more modes than Pam has seen."

Such as? Are you speaking w/one another at cross purposes? It occurs within humans, if that's what you mean, and, I'm not sure it does.

Forces for levity exist just as sure as Fellini exist(ed) and Farnaz exist(ed)(?)

Farnaz
Aka Federico

Pseudo says:
"If you are too young to have seen that, I am sure YouTube will have a version."

I wish I could say I'm too young, but if I did, I'd be lying. :)

Pam:

BTW, "Levity in Science" is best sung to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies" if you really want to get into the spirit. If you are too young to have seen that, I am sure YouTube will have a version.

%-}

Farnaz,

What make you think I am Anti HGT?
It just has more modes than Pam has seen.

I love the concept of a force of levity...

Dear Great Christian Anti-HGT Poet, Pseudo,

Levity, yes! Remember, the umbrellas! La Dolce Vita--always--or at least from time to time. Otherwise, temperance. Never despair.

Farnaz
AKA Carmen

Pam and Farnaz,

Levity in Science

Back in Ancient Aegypt when old Ptolemy began
The Force of Levity was in the skies, and epicycles ran

Along came dear old Newton with his Universal Law
And levity was thrown away; a theory with a flaw

Then the Cosmological Constant was there for all to see
But Einstein later came to call it a cause of misery

And after falling out of favor for half a century
Now they call the ancient force “dark energy”

%-}

Years ago when I read Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica I found the suggestion in the Preface that “...gravity, levity, elastic force, the resistance of fluids, and the like forces...” were all matters of serious discussion at that time.

Thus I try to remain ungoverned by Universal Gravity, preferring a flight on the wings of levity now and then.

Oops. That last is really addressed to Pam.

AThagoras:

PSEUDO wrote to Athagoras:

"Dude, never take anything from a guy who writes under a handle like "Pseudo" too seriously. %-}"

In your case, I would modify that to read:

Dudette, never take anything from a guy who writes under a handle like "Pseudo" too seriously. %-}

Persiflage,

YOU: Congratulations Timmy - where do you do this?

Wherever the subject comes up.
And thank you for the condescending congratulations. Your peace loving philosophy serves you well I see.

YOU: I mean, aside from this thread. My suggestion was to educate the throngs and hoards of folks that are still constipated from digesting too many religion carbohydrates - wherever they may be found.

What makes you think I don't?

YOU: You claim to study Vedanta and Buddhism, but seem to take exception with what I (and others) have to say about these philosophies

I most certainly have not taken exception to them. Have you watched the video I've been pushing on everyone to demonstrate my scientific vision of these eastern religions? I am clearly on board with most of what I've read about Buddhism and Vedanta. Your problem seems to be that I am not completely on board. That I haven't concurred entirely that yes, this is THE WAY. Vedanta is THE answer. Pure awareness IS our natural immanent sate. Brahma is truth. Samsara is my prison until I accept that I am ignorant and deluded to the truth of Brahma.

I only take exception to the suggestion that "here is the answer", "here is the MEANING you've been looking for that makes you incomplete, Timmy". No one philosophy has the answer, or we'd all be practicing it.

I tell people to look at all philosophies and religions with an open mind and make your own philosophy our of the great melting pot of human wisdom, and you tell people to check out Buddhism and Vedanta. See the difference?

YOU: This is why I have you pegged as a contrarian - while you may agree in substance, you will always disagree on principle.

I have just told you the only principle I disagree with. What you want is a confirmation from me that I fully admit that Vedanta is the true way. You wont give me the full condescending "congratulations Timmy" until I admit that my couch isn't real.

YOU: You must have been kind of tough on your fellow band members back in the day - it's always the guitar player, isn't it??

Nice conversation. Your vedanta serves you well I see.

Pseudo,
You're either not serious or you're effing nuts.
I'm going to be charitable and assume it's the former.

Hi Persiflage,

Glad you liked the Stevens. Here's a link to some criticism (excerpts) on "The Idea of Order."

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/s_z/stevens/keywest.htm

I'll check out the Wikipedia link. Are there any books you'd recommend? My hands are itching for paper. :)

Farnaz

Timmy2 and Athogras,

You asked the perfect question: what other method?

1) Vedanta is a METHOD OF INQUIRY. It is NOT the ultimate knowledge or revealed knowledge. If you learn Vedanta you don't learn the answer, you learn the method to get to the answer. You have to do the rest. The method allows/expects rational skepticism.

This is analogous to the scientific method, BUT with NONDUALITY. This is where it gets tricky for most people. Science is the best method for studying the universe, but presumes dualism. The observer is separate from the subject (i.e stars, cells, atoms, brains... vs. the consciousness trying to study it).

This is not true according to Indian philosophy (Vedanta method). If the subject of inquiry is separate, then rational skepticism manifests as the scienific method. BUT if the subject of inquiry is you yourself by yourself, then what? Telescopes and microscopes won't help. The method for inquiring /knowing /understanding /experiencing your Self (Atman) will require meditation; control of senses,mind and intellect; etc...

This is the method of Vedanta. It is not "religion" in any sense of the word. It may feel like religion at times because you are not just inquiring into things, but also inquiring the nature of consciousness, existence, bliss, morals, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, politics, social issues, justice - complete philosophy and knowledge.

Vedanta: you may not like it; you may not get it; but it can't hurt you. I feel some religions can actually make you a worse human being (spiritual devolution). Western philosophy and science can make you a better intellectual, but Vedanta can potentially make you a better person.

Farnaz - thanks for the W. Stevens - powerful stuff. And all after the age of 50! There's still hope, but barely..... :)

I'd recommend checking the link below on Shankara, if you haven't. He developed the Advaita system in 800 C.E. as a discipline based on the much older philosophy of Vedanta.

Along the way, you may find ideas that utilize dreaming (of the ludid variety) as a meditative technique. This is perfectly in synch with tantric dream techniques employed by the Dzogchen system arising in Tibet.

The phenomenon of dreaming has a very deep significance in these systems - the mechanism of dreaming itself, rather than the content per se.

I personally like the idea of order, but have come to believe I have too much of it....... and this didn't used to be the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

Persiflage,

You know "The Idea of Order" is one of God's gifts to us, whether God exists or not.

Farnaz

The Idea of Order at Key West
Wallace Stevens

She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice,
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry,
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.

The sea was not a mask. No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound
Even if what she sang was what she heard,
Since what she sang was uttered word by word.
It may be that in all her phrases stirred
The grinding water and the gasping wind;
But it was she and not the sea we heard.

For she was the maker of the song she sang.
The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea
Was merely a place by which she walked to sing.
Whose spirit is this? we said, because we knew
It was the spirit that we sought and knew
That we should ask this often as she sang.
If it was only the dark voice of the sea
That rose, or even colored by many waves;
If it was only the outer voice of sky
And cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled,
However clear, it would have been deep air,
The heaving speech of air, a summer sound
Repeated in a summer without end
And sound alone. But it was more than that,
More even than her voice, and ours, among
The meaningless plungings of water and the wind,
Theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped
On high horizons, mountainous atmospheres
Of sky and sea.

It was her voice that made
The sky acutest at its vanishing.
She measured to the hour its solitude.
She was the single artificer of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.

Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As the night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.

Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.

The Emperor of Ice-Cream
By Wallace Stevens

Call the roller of big cigars,
The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month's newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

[1922]

Hi Persiflage,

"and surprisingly, was reported to have undergone a deathbed conversion to Catholicism at the end of his life 1955. He may have died in a Catholic hospital……."

Frankly, I don't think it was all so deathbed, although if he were here he would certainly protest my claim. I'm so glad you like him, and I'm going to post two others. One "The Emperor of Ice Cream" is the an atheist's dream come true, the other an artist's, imaginer's, Buddhist's?

Btw., I read "ADVAITA BODHA DEEPIKA." It was magnificent, but I think I'm getting lost. Can you recommend some introductory books?

Farnaz

Hi Farnaz - I read Ann Druyan's well-done piece, and I imagine Sagan's influence played a considerable role in shaping her present views - which were well portrayed in what might have been his final work, 'The Varieties of Scientific Experience' - an ironic take-off on the William James work (Varieties of Religious Experience).

It’s tragic that so many in the modern age still take mythos as a factual rendering of historical events – to the exclusion of more informed views.

For too many, there’s a complete disconnect between the modern thought processes and discoveries of the scientific perspective, and the antiquated dogma of religion taken to absurd literalist extremes.

In my neck of the woods, a good many folks with advanced degrees are as full of religious piety and biblical conviction as a 9th grade highschool drop-out. More than a few will equivicate as to the literal truth of Genesis…..I can understand Ms. Druyan’s consternation. Hell, we saw it with recent would-be GOP presidential candidates!

I read your Wallace Stevens and Anita Endrezzi with great appreciation, although I didn’t know his work. He seems to have been revered by his poetic peers of the day – and surprisingly, was reported to have undergone a deathbed conversion to Catholicism at the end of his life 1955. He may have died in a Catholic hospital…….
__________________

Timmy sez -

'Educating the masses about what? That there are a great many philosophies in the pool of human knowledge gained over the millennia of civilization that can be useful for helping us deal with the great mystery of life? That is what I do.'

Congratulations Timmy - where do you do this? I mean, aside from this thread. My suggestion was to educate the throngs and hoards of folks that are still constipated from digesting too many religion carbohydrates - wherever they may be found.

You claim to study Vedanta and Buddhism, but seem to take exception with what I (and others) have to say about these philosophies - without sharing your own knowledge and experience.

This is why I have you pegged as a contrarian - while you may agree in substance, you will always disagree on principle. You must have been kind of tough on your fellow band members back in the day - it's always the guitar player, isn't it??

Pseudo,

Science hates a show-off. Is it the merging part you object to, then?

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgtype=1

Pam,

How do you think a Macintosh computer was first born? Linux was it's mother, and Windows was its Father. That's why Microsoft Office will run on in. The horizontal gene transfer worked.

Pam,

"And the computer/human thing is still preposterous."

My computer has GenBank extracts in it. That why I keep a condom over the keyboard. Who knows what could happen if I didn't?

Pam,

"... they merge, or one wholly encompasses another..."

Do some more homework.

Hey Farnaz:

"I would greatly appreciate any and all comments on my combat with the reverend."

Wild ride! What is your real question? Do you want to know whether the rev is a hopeless bigot or if you should try to save him? IMO, the former.

Persiflage,

YOU: That's not to say that those with greater expertise in knowing consciousness are not worth studying...that could include both brain scientists and master meditators (who curiously have become fertile ground for brain researchers in recent years)

I do study. Have studied. Continue to study all of these things.

YOU: But your real mission, given your passion for the topic, should be educating the masses, because it's very clear that the median level of education and general knowledge on this particular thread is far beyond (and in some cases very far beyond) the norm of our generally quasi-educated masses.

Educating the masses about what? That there are a great many philosophies in the pool of human knowledge gained over the millennia of civilization that can be useful for helping us deal with the great mystery of life? That is what I do.

YOU: Holding religion acountable for that sorry state of affairs seems both simplex (in a complex world) and woefully inadequate as an explanation

I don't hold religion accountable. Just like vedanta, I hold ignorance and delusion accountable. I have always seen vedanta as the original atheism.

YOU: ....but for the most part, you're preaching to the choir here.

Not true. I do not preach to believers. I preach to apologists who think that delusion is necessary for some people. And in case you hadn't noticed, there are plenty of those here on this thread.

YOU: Educated folk that choose religion and the tenets of religion are not making an uninfomed choice. It meets their needs, and so be it.

It meets their needs like cigarettes meet the needs of smokers.
And they are not making an informed choice. The vast majority of them are brainwashed from birth and have had certain facts kept from them.

YOU: What you like to refer to as religious salvage or 'philosophy' had it's origins in religious traditions to begin with - but let's not restart that discussion!

It only had it's origin in religion because everything was attributed to God back then. There was no such thing as "non religion". Where else would the non religious thoughts from our ancient ancestors end up?

YOU: And I have to agree with another poster that astutely pointed out the predilection for humans to engage in ritualistic behavior - how ever would we get by without it? And that includes all kinds of religious behavior - habitual and habit-forming, like much else in our lives.

I get by without it no problem as do millions and millions of atheists. Just like cigarettes. It's really not that hard to do with out if you're not addicted to the product.

YOU: Here again, the academic study of religion as part of the secondary education curricula in the USA cannot be recommended highly enough - right along with science, math and social studies.

Hear hear.

"No. Horizontal gene transfer among microbes does not wait for a new generation to take effect. It is direct exchange of a gene for, say penecillin resistance, from one bug to the next."

Yes, Psuedo, I know - in *microbes* (which, BTW, are not capable of having "friends." And they don't just transfer one or two genes, as in "may I borrow a cup of sugar?", they merge, or one wholly encompasses another (like the mitochondria in each of our cells that are separate beings with their own DNA).

Go back to Athagoras's link and re-read the article. Above the microbial level, the only HGT that it talks about is hybridization - which takes place by sexual reproduction.

Hybridization is limited - once speciation proceeds too far, Haldane's law kicks in, and hybrids - first males, then both sexes - are sterile.

But no hybridization necessary for human-to-human HGT - we only have to make babies the normal way for that to occur.

And the computer/human thing is still preposterous.

DITLD and All,

I hate to intrude, particularly since above all, I would like to see this thread return to Buddhism and Vedic practices, rather than turn to secular religious warfare. I use "secular" as an adjective here, and, paradoxically, but not oxymoronically.

Currently, I seem to have gotten into a duel with one Willis Elliott. The unfortunate part is that I have had neither time nor inclination to go at this wholeheartedly, but since he cannot forebear, I fear I may have to.

I would greatly appreciate any and all comments on my combat with the reverend. If anyone is desirous of momentary distraction or aid to Farnaz, please click on to the reverend's thread. I don't ask for support. I'm simply curious as to what is afoot here. Notice Thomas Baum and DITLD's posts, too, if you would.

Thanks in advance.

Farnaz

Freestinker asks:

>>If you doubt evolution then how do you explain the fact that men have nipples?

Men have nipples because we all were conceived female. Somewhere during conception or pregnancy we either stay a female or turn into a male. You may notice male and female have all the same "bits" but they differ in size and function.......ovaries are the female counterpart to male gonads ........and nipples either sit on a pair of breasts or for the male are just there.

Sorry freestinker, your question lacks substance.

Timmy sez - 'no one knows what role conscousness plays. Not the Buddhists, or Hindus, or anyone else'. Perhaps you meant 'no one knows to what extent consciousness is a factor in the creation of our particular known universe'.

Come come Timmy - we wouldn't be having this conversation without consciousness....so we do know something about consciousness and the role it plays, don't we? The underlying nature of consciousness is a moot point, at least as it pertains to our present level of conversation.

The reach and/or limits of consciousness it most likely not known by either of us - or perhaps by anyone blogging here.

That's not to say that those with greater expertise in knowing consciousness are not worth studying...that could include both brain scientists and master meditators (who curiously have become fertile ground for brain researchers in recent years).

But your real mission, given your passion for the topic, should be educating the masses, because it's very clear that the median level of education and general knowledge on this particular thread is far beyond (and in some cases very far beyond) the norm of our generally quasi-educated masses.

Holding religion acountable for that sorry state of affairs seems both simplex (in a complex world) and woefully inadequate as an explanation......but for the most part, you're preaching to the choir here.

Educated folk that choose religion and the tenets of religion are not making an uninfomed choice. It meets their needs, and so be it. What you like to refer to as religious salvage or 'philosophy' had it's origins in religious traditions to begin with - but let's not restart that discussion!

And I have to agree with another poster that astutely pointed out the predilection for humans to engage in ritualistic behavior - how ever would we get by without it? And that includes all kinds of religious behavior - habitual and habit-forming, like much else in our lives.

Here again, the academic study of religion as part of the secondary education curricula in the USA cannot be recommended highly enough - right along with science, math and social studies.

The over-inflated culture of sports (as opposed to the benefits of the more benign tradition of athletics) has probably wreaked havoc on public education in ways too numerous to count, but we should save that topic for another discussion....

Pamsm:

"We already have that - it's called sexual reproduction. And computers don't have genes."

No. Horizontal gene transfer among microbes does not wait for a new generation to take effect. It is direct exchange of a gene for, say penecillin resistance, from one bug to the next.

The bugs do not use sexual reproduction, they fission. The HGT was a shock because it was assumed that the very short generation times, and natural mutations, were the engine of microbial (Darwinian) evolution, and here we find friends exchanging "useful" genes. Interesting and not fully understood.

Thomas,

ME: "It's because you claim your God is a perfect and loving being"

YOU: That is not what I have said, what I said is that God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE, I have mentioned numerous times that Love is not an attribute of God but is His Very Being.

Yes Thomas you have said this. But you have also said much more than this about God, Thomas. You have said that your experience with God confirmed that God is the trinity, more specifically the Catholic version of the trinity, and you habitually quote the bible on behalf of God. You have confirmed and defend the Catholic God. And the Catholic version of God is a perfect all powerful God.

So yes you have said that your God is a perfect God.

If you had only ever said that God was a being of pure love, we would not be at odds. It is your insistence that God is the Catholic God that separates us.

God as a being of pure love is a very abstract thought that I have no problem with.

Hi Persiflage,

I read the Ann Druyan piece, and I have to say I am once more shocked at the radical differences between Christian and Judaic understandings of Genesis. For Jews, Genesis is etiology.

But that etiology has an enabling function for many with respect to culture. It reads opposite to Druyan's analogy. It is not an Icarus myth. It is worth looking at Stanley Milgram's inclusion of the myth (sorry, Thomas Baum) in "Obedience to Authority." It was that firs disobedience that ushered in history and possibility. From a less secular perspective, one could say it was a warning about obedience to false gods, seduction, unwitting and witting obedience to evil, moral blindness.

I keep thinking about the attraction Buddhism and other nondualist religions/philosophies/practices have had for Jews, both cultural and observant.

When I first encountered the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, great warrior against "binaries," I had the strange sense that notwithstanding its enormous difficulty as a critique of Western metaphysics, indeed of all philosophic enterprises that had deceived themselves into thinking they'd escaped metaphysics, I had been there before--deja vu.

I found myself looking back at Tanakh and noting uncanny similarities between Derrida's text and the writings of these ancients, similarities I could not yet articulate. Finally, I began to see in Derrida an abundance of warnings about what it means to name, to "write" as he put it, and gradually light came into the darkness.

Many years later, in different ways, others began to comment on the Tanakh influences they saw in Derrida. He read through the critiques carefully, and with great astonishment, had to confess that they were there.

This morning, I read through "ADVAITA BODHA DEEPIKA" and saw yet deeper connections with Derrida. False binaries....

The full text is available on the web....

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp33617

Pseudo said: "Or our pals as in the case of HGT. Little doubt that in time we will master HGT from human to human, and from computer to human. Wild ride coming up there"

Indeed.
Wild ride coming in our lifetime even. Nature can not keep up with human technology. Eve should never have eaten that apple. But then again we all know it was impossible for her not to so what's the point in lamenting on that. I envy our generation. We're going to get to see some pretty incredible transformations go down in our time left. And we might just squeak our way out of here before it gets too nasty and weird.

Here's hopin Barack really is the messiah.

Daniel12 says:
"To Pam again. About whether Wallace was codiscoverer of evolution, I thought it was not just natural selection that Wallace and Darwin discovered--I thought they were the first to postulate species change."

No, it predates Darwin by at least a century and a half - and in some sense, as far back as the early Greeks. Descent with modification was well accepted in Darwin's day, but no one knew how or why it worked. See here: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml

There are some good links at the bottom of the page. As for books, for a non-specific overview,
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer, is an excellent start. It's the companion book to the PBS series of the same name.

Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin, is less general and not about the history of the idea, but it's a great read - made the WaPo top 100 books of the year for 2008.

Athagoras:

Judah Folkman is a wonderful case for analysis and understanding. A surgeon who observed angiogenesis in hard tumors every day of his life who decided to research methods to stop the phenomenon. How did the Orthodox at NCI respond to this very simple observation? Hostility. Also, they changed things in his experiments and then blamed him for a lack of reproducibility. He was outside their narrow and limited range of ideas so they branded him a heretic. Sounds like the bad aspects of religion to me.

%-}

Pseudo says:
"Little doubt that in time we will master HGT from human to human..."

We already have that - it's called sexual reproduction. And computers don't have genes.

Read my advice to Daniel12.

Daniel12 wrote:
"To Pam from Daniel. I found it fascinating about babies skulls being in pieces which later fuse.

What do you make of that according to evolution? Is it that the babies with "looser skulls" had a survival advantage because their brains grew bigger and better than those babies with hard skulls..."

It's not to allow the brain to grow after birth so much as it is to allow the bigger brain to make it through the birth canal.

It wasn't difficult for this to arise, since humans are basically neotenized chimpanzees. Neoteny is the persistence of juvenile charcteristics into adulthood. Dogs are neotenized wolves. They bark, have floppy ears and shorter faces, carry their tails higher, and are friendly to other species (including licking faces, which is wolf cub food-begging behavior) - all characteristics of wolf cubs, but not adult wolves.

Humans have shorter jaws (and delayed dentition), toes that line up with one another (unlike the chimp great toe that juts to the side like our thumbs, to facilitate climbing), vellus body hair, a longer period of brain growth and childhood, and other charcteristics that are like not just juvenile chimps, but in some cases, fetal ones (toes, vellum).

This happens through modifications in the timing of gene expression. Much of what was once thought to be "junk" DNA, we now know to affect timing during pre-natal growth. It can make for profound changes.

The skull grows from several plates that gradually expand to contact each other. In many animals this is complete before birth. With us, that would mean we could not be born. So...neotenous brainy hominids lived to pass on their genes.

DANIEL12: "... would it make sense to "aid" this looseskulledness some more and have peoples skulls loose well into adolescence? How big and better exactly would the brain grow after birth if it had no limitation by skull?"

No larger. brain size is genetically determined, not delimited by skull size. And yes, the skull is to protect the brain.

DANIEL12: "Could we not have our brains in some type of loose "headress" and have it growing bigger and better well into middle age? Sorry if this seems absurd. I have a habit of taking every idea I come across to the logical limit."

Yes, Daniel, absurd. Put away the science fiction for a while, and try reading some *real* science.

Athagoras:

"Actually Lamarck was not as wrong as we think he was."

Amusing, no? One thing I have seen in science again and again is the hostile response by the orthodox community to the unorthodox. This must be the subject for another laugh or two. Say tuned.

"They keep discovering new ways of passing things on to our descendants."

Or our pals as in the case of HGT. Little doubt that in time we will master HGT from human to human, and from computer to human. Wild ride coming up there.

THOMAS,

YOU: It is a mess and yet God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

Some plan. Where do I line up up worship this guy?

Persiflage,

YOU: As to ultimate meaning and purpose, here I am of one mind with Timmy - there is none, and can be none. The anthropic view of cosmology is DOA.

We are indeed in agreement here.

YOU; "Beyond that, I'm with Clearthinking - take a look at Vedanta and Buddhism for the ancient monistic wisdom contained therein. All is one, and one is all"

All is one and one is all, is a nice philosophy to live by, but I would not state it as "the way things are". It's just one way to look at it, and looking at it this way could certainly lead us all into a peaceful way of interacting with each other. But I think that individuality is also important to our way of looking at the world.

And I still don't see anything wrong with regarding my sofa as a real thing or even as a possession. This is a real thing that I own, because I worked hard for it.

YOU: While the limiting vision of a self-contained and autonomous existence has great practical value, separation and (apparent) independent existence is the grand illusion.

Here you are losing me a bit. I don't want to think of my individuality as a "grand illusion".

YOU: You can't completely dis-assemble the whole into composite parts - where does it begin, and where does it end?

I am an individual as well as being part of the whole. I have no trouble telling where I end and others begin. I can see this separation and the connection at the same time.

YOU: "And what role does consciousness play?"

No one knows. Not the Buddhists, or the Hindus or anyone else.

YOU: "Time, space, gravity, and the stuff of space are inseparable.....science, not religion, tells us that"

True dat.

Good essay Susan.

Rev Lowry's - 'black doesn't have to get back' bit is from the old blues song;

If you white - you alright.
if you brown stick around.
but if you black - oh brother
get back get back get back.

I believe it's a Big Bill Broonzy song.

I too noted Obama's mention of unbelievers. Yeah, we really do exist, and there are more and more of us all the time. I like to think that one day we will be in the majority; not soon, but one day.
You might say - I have a dream...

TIMMY2

You wrote, "It's because you claim your God is a perfect and loving being"

That is not what I have said, what I said is that God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE, I have mentioned numerous times that Love is not an attribute of God but is His Very Being.

You also wrote, "It's not a mess if it "just is".

But if it was supposedly created by an all loving and perfect deity, just for us and God's pleasure, then yes, it's quite a mess."

It is a mess and yet God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

We have free will and as what should be obvious, there is plenty of things in our everyday lives wherever we find ourselves to make decisions on what we can do.

Don't worry, God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel, you've made an excellent point re. complexity and reductionism.

Notice how some folks are exceedingly relieved to believe that we've finally reached the logical and empirical limits of our infinitely complex world - CCNL, for example, is thrilled with the idea that quarks and their 6 flavors are the 'abolute' limit.

Whew!! Never thought we'd get there - but wait! By the same hyposthesis as generated by physicist Murray Gell-Mann, quarks never appear as solitary entities, or without being bound together as more complex things i.e. atomic nuclei. We've never seen an atom, much less an electron or a quark - and we never will.

Like strings and string theory, this quarkian postulate temporarily satisfies the explanatory needs of a highly theoretical and perpetually invisible world - that as Clearthinking tells us, will soon change for a better and more 'accurate' paradigm.

The philosophies of Vedanta and Buddhism tell us that at the bottom of the pile, there is really nothing there at all - living with that liklihood and it's implications carry us into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.

Science has great explanatory value, but human creations (such as science and mathematics) always confront their own limits. As to ultimate meaning and purpose, here I am of one mind with Timmy - there is none, and can be none. The anthropic view of cosmology is DOA.

Beyond that, I'm with Clearthinking - take a look at Vedanta and Buddhism for the ancient monistic wisdom contained therein. All is one, and one is all.

While the limiting vision of a self-contained and autonomous existence has great practical value, separation and (apparent) independent existence is the grand illusion. You can't completely dis-assemble the whole into composite parts - where does it begin, and where does it end? And what role does consciousness play?

Time, space, gravity, and the stuff of space are inseparable.....science, not religion, tells us that.

David12

Complexity is an illlusion of the mind. The "simple" things that make "complex" things, are not all that simple. How do you know that a single electrom is not more complex than a human brain? It is not, for sure, just an inert particle with no innards or parts; it is fact something composed of other things.

When simple things become complex things, I assume you mean that atomic particle make atoms, and atoms make elements, and elements make compounds, and compounds make living things. But when you examine each simple thing that has contributed to the formation of a complex thing, these simple things remain as they were, "simple", and whey I say simple, I mean, not that simple, as I stated before.

For the complex designs that simple things may form are already extant in these simple things. Complexity is inate to them. Each of the these simple things are as complex as any of the complex things you think they may become.

I do not think simple things become complex things. This is an illusion resulting from myopidally peering too closely at individual things, one by one, without realizing how these seeminly simple things are made, and without realizing how they relate to the existence of all other things.

TIMMY2 asked:
can you give examples of religious rituals, customs and traditions that don't have to do with deity belief?

I'm thinking of things like marriage ceremonies, fasting on particular days, coming of age ceremonies. The tradition of meeting on Sundays to hear someone speak and share a meal. These don't have to be tied to worship of a deity. There are things like regious art and architecture.

In Asia, there are many ceremonies and traditions that are connected with religion, but most people don't believe in the superstitions associated with them anymore. I'm thinking of things like Shinto. There are very few people who believe in Shinto spirits now, but people still love the ceremonies. Have you ever seen a Shinto ceremony? They are quite a spectacle. The clothing and the music etc. Incredible to watch.

These things don't need to be connected with a belief in the supernatural or belief in a deity, unfortunately many rituals and ceremonies are connected with religions and superstitions, but secular alternatives are pretty drab in comparison. I got married in a church because my wife always wanted a traditional church wedding.

Teaching of ethics and morals has been a traditional function of religion. In Australia, many younger people are growing up with no religious beliefs and they don't follow any tradition of teaching their children ethics, so there are gangs of kids roaming the streets and mugging people in some places. It's getting as bad as the USA. Oh no, I'm sounding like those theists who ask "How can you be moral without God?" While I don't like the hypocritical and nonsensical ethics that religions tend to teach, it would be nice to have some tradition of teaching ethics. I teach my kids to be considerate and not to lie etc because it helps them to be happy and respected members of society, but I don't have any particular tradition or process for doing this. It would be nice if I did have such a process that my children could pass on to their children.

What I'm saying is that there are many aspects of human culture that have traditionally been connected with religion and provided as services by religious institutions that there are few good secular alternatives for. We need to start producing secular alternatives.

I'm rambling and getting a bit vague. It's late, but before I go to sleep, here's a link to some very inspiring words by Ann Druyan about healing the rift between science and religion:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html

To Pam again. About whether Wallace was codiscoverer of evolution, I thought it was not just natural selection that Wallace and Darwin discovered--I thought they were the first to postulate species change. In other words, I thought before Darwin and Wallace people thought God created the species and that they would always remain the same--not change over time. I know people knew about fossils, but I thought that until I believe a German person made scientific sense of them that people thought of them in something of mythical terms--that they were monsters or dragons that once ruled the earth. About animal breeding before Darwin and Wallace, it does seem to make sense that animal breeders would not only notice species change, but that they change by natural selection. I guess what I am trying to say is what is the exact history which led up to Darwin and Wallace? Do you know a good book which describes that?

I should also say I think I made a mistake saying it was Lucretius who was an atheist and who proposed the atomic theory (that things break down to atoms). Was it Epicurus instead? And Democritus to an extent before him?--------Ok, I just looked up all these thinkers and I have it sorted out: First was Democritus with the atomic theory, then came epicurus who accepted the atomic theory (or did he invent it himself not knowing of Democritus?) and perhaps can be characterized as an atheist. Then came Lucretius who made Epicurus the hero of his famous poem. I guess the point I am getting at is that this is a line of thinkers leading up to the "complexity comes from simplicity concept and we do not have to postulate God or intelligent design at the beginning".

To Pam from Daniel. I found it fascinating about babies skulls being in pieces which later fuse.

What do you make of that according to evolution? Is it that the babies with "looser skulls" had a survival advantage because their brains grew bigger and better than those babies with hard skulls and of course the loose skulled babies survived more and passed on the "loose skull" gene and now we all follow that pattern?

Is that correct reasoning?

If it is correct reasoning would it make sense to "aid" this looseskulledness some more and have peoples skulls loose well into adolescence? How big and better exactly would the brain grow after birth if it had no limitation by skull?

Why a skull in the first place? To protect the brain? But if society is civilized and people are careful, why a skull at all? Could we not have our brains in some type of loose "headress" and have it growing bigger and better well into middle age? Sorry if this seems absurd. I have a habit of taking every idea I come across to the logical limit.

CLEARTHINKING,

I posted this earlier to Athagoras by accident. My reply to your last post.

YOU SAID: What you are looking for is true knowledge (understanding/ meaning).

I don't know if I would equate understanding with meaning in this context.

YOU: This is not a game of semantics. This is at the heart of that incompleteness that science and religion cannot satisfy.

What can?

YOU: Again, we need to explore the limits of inquiry based on induction and the scientific method.

I don't see any limitations on them, more importantly I don't see any other method of inquiry.

I wish I could just have FAITH in the scientific method of inquiry. Then I could rest easy knowing that although everything science tells me will someday be disproven.

What other method of inquiry do we have?

Athagoras,

YOU SAID: "I think you got me confused with someone else in your last post"

I did. That was for CLEARTHINKING.

YOU: If you define religion to be "belief in God". Then I agree with you.

YOU: If you define religion as belief in the supernatural and belief without evidence, then I think we are in total agreement.

I do.

YOU: I consider religion to include rituals and customs and traditions.

can you give examples of religious rituals, customs and traditions that don't have to do with deity belief?

YOU: I think there are a lot of good things in Buddhism and also in Hinduism. I found a lot of value in Buddhism.

Me too.

YOU: I can't really say the same for Christianity. I think the good aspects of Christianity are not unique to Christianity and there are better alternatives.

I'm not a fan of Christianity but I am a fan of the teachings of the mythical character called Jesus. It's a shame the two aren't more similar.

Reality Poetry 101

BO

Barack Obama is his name,
Pres because of his skin tone?
Because of the normal race game?
No, because dead babies now moan!!

Voting “moms and dads” of said life forms,
Yes, 70 plus million indeed they voted for,
One BH Obama, as pro-abortion he conforms,
Now the Immoral Majority rules life’s door!!!

PSEUDO wrote
Dude, never take anything from a guy who writes under a handle like "Pseudo" too seriously. %-}

OK. Thanks for the tip :-)

Actually Lamarck was not as wrong as we think he was. They keep discovering new ways of passing things on to our descendants. It seems our understanding of how heridity works is still incomplete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Timmy2 quoted someone (not me)
Someone wrote: "I wish I could just have FAITH in the scientific method of inquiry. Then I could rest easy knowing that although everything science tells me will someday be disproven."

(I can't find the quote and IE just freezes when I try and search), but I'll comment.

As a scientist I agree that science provides only an approximation to reality. Fortunatly or unfortunately it is the best approximation we have. It is a much better approximation that what religions tell us. This has been proven over and over again. It's obvious why. Religions resist change and do not learn from new information. Science is based on evidence and changes as we learn more. That's why religions have always been wrong and science has always been right when there has been a conflict between the two.

Fortunately you don't need FAITH to trust science. Since it is based on available evidence, faith is not required. Science has proven to be a reliable way to understand the world. Newton was wrong about gravity but Newtonian mechanics provides a model of physics that is accurate enough for many purposes. Science provides the best understanding of reality that we have, given the available information.

I also think that older sources of wisdom have value. People have been philosophising for many centuries and many of the old arguments are still valid. As ClearThinking seems to be saying, there may be gaps in science that may have been filled by past thinkers and philosophers. I think there probably are. I like to read Chinese philosophy - it's full of practical wisdom. Buddhists and Hindus have been meditating and studying the mind and the nature of consciousness for centuries. I think there's a lot of value there if we can disentangle it from superstition.

Dude, never take anything from a guy who writes under a handle like "Pseudo" too seriously. %-}

Pseudo,
HGT is only superficially like what Lamarck believed. Lamarck believed that you could pass on things like strength aquired through exercise to your descendants. He was totally unaware of genetics of course.

Timmy2,
I think you got me confused with someone else in your last post.

If you define religion to be "belief in God". Then I agree with you. There is no real upside to it. I don't have such a narrow definition of religion. If you define religion as belief in the supernatural and belief without evidence, then I think we are in total agreement.

I consider religion to include rituals and customs and traditions. Those things are not bad unless they serve as a replacement for reason or compassion. I think there are a lot of good things in Buddhism and also in Hinduism. I found a lot of value in Buddhism. I can't really say the same for Christianity. I think the good aspects of Christianity are not unique to Christianity and there are better alternatives.

Regards,
AThagoras AKA Realist

Athagoras:

Well horizontal gene transfer wouldn't that just mean
That organisms teach their friends all the latest genes?

Though that Charles Darwin fella was the biggest star
Now he needs a little help from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

I guess it goes to show ya when we think we know it all
That those we said were really wrong might come back after all

It makes you wonder in sciences why we have seldom seen
Thinkers who are smart enough to live beyond their memes?

Athagoras,

YOU: What you are looking for is true knowledge (understanding/ meaning).

I don't know if I would equate understanding with meaning in this context.

YOU: This is not a game of semantics. This is at the heart of that incompleteness that science and religion cannot satisfy.

What can?

YOU: Again, we need to explore the limits of inquiry based on induction and the scientific method.

I don't see any limitations on them, more importantly I don't see any other method of inquiry.

I wish I could just have FAITH in the scientific method of inquiry. Then I could rest easy knowing that although everything science tells me will someday be disproven.

What other method of inquiry do we have?

Timmy2,

You say that you're pretty sure that there is no meaning, yet you continue to be strive, seek, and look for something. I think you have convinced yourself that what you are looking for is data (science as we know it). What you are looking for is true knowledge (understanding/ meaning). This is not a game of semantics. This is at the heart of that incompleteness that science and religion cannot satisfy. It transcends our current accepted methods of knowing, which can give us an infinite amount of data. Again, we need to explore the limits of inquiry based on induction and the scientific method.

I wish I could just have FAITH in the scientific method of inquiry. Then I could rest easy knowing that although everything science tells me will someday be disproven, I have faith in the method. Its just not that simple - and that's the good news.

Hi ATHAGORAS,

YOU: I beg to differ. I think ritual is beneficial to society. There are studies that show that religious people are happier than non-religious people.

Ask someone who is on heroin if they are happier when they are on heroin or when they are not on heroin. Of course you need to ask them while they are on the heroin. As for "ritual" have you any studies there or is this just your opinion.

Studies have also shown that more atheistic societies such as Denmark and Scandinavia are happier, more peaceful and have lower crime rates.

YOU: Religion has benefits for people. If it had no benefits, I don't think it would be so popular.

Smoking has benefits for people. If it had no benefits, I don't think it would be so popular.

YOU: That's not to say that people need God. Real friends are much better than imaginary ones, but I think there must be ways of getting the benefits of religion without the negatives (such as the need to believe things without evidence).

Religion is only the "belief in God" part. The rest of it is human wisdom and philosophy that has been hijacked by religion because at one time, religion ruled the whole world and everyone was religious. So al of our human wisdom got put into religious texts. There are ways of getting the benefits without the negatives. Surgically remove the negatives and throw them in the garbage. Take out the benefits and toss them into the great melting pot of human wisdom. But all religions fail to do this. They will not throw out the garbage because the entire book is sacred. They just try to reinterpret or reconstruct the ignorant garbage.

YOU: I don't like this attitude that some of the "new atheists" have that everything to do with religion is bad and religion should be completely erradicated.

As I just explained, take away the deity belief parts, and the deity commands, and religion is just philosophy. The only thing that makes it religion is the deity belief part. So in this sense, all religion is bad. But no one, not even the harshest of New Atheists, is calling for eradication. We are calling for enlightenment. Just like what has occurred organically in places like Denmark and Scandinavia. Militant criticism of religion is not a call for eradication. It is awareness raising. Let the people decide for themselves. But let them be informed.

YOU: There are a lot of good things in many religions. We need to keep the good and discard the bad. I think there would be many good bits left.

Me too. And they would all be secular human wisdom once you discard the metaphysical claims and deity commandments.

I don't want to throw away our myths. I just want everyone to realize that they are myths. We can actually benefit more from them that way, rather than taking them literally.

At The Smithville Methodist Church
Stephen Dunn

It was supposed to be Arts & Crafts for a week,
but when she came home
with the "Jesus Saves" button, we knew what art
was up, what ancient craft.

She liked her little friends. She liked the songs
they sang when they weren't
twisting and folding paper into dolls.
What could be so bad?

Jesus had been a good man, and putting faith
in good men was what
we had to do to stay this side of cynicism,
that other sadness.

OK, we said, One week. But when she came home
singing "Jesus loves me,
the Bible tells me so," it was time to talk.
Could we say Jesus

doesn't love you? Could I tell her the Bible
is a great book certain people use
to make you feel bad? We sent her back
without a word.

It had been so long since we believed, so long
since we needed Jesus
as our nemesis and friend, that we thought he was
sufficiently dead,

that our children would think of him like Lincoln
or Thomas Jefferson.
Soon it became clear to us: you can't teach disbelief
to a child,

only wonderful stories, and we hadn't a story
nearly as good.
On parents' night there were the Arts & Crafts
all spread out

like appetizers. Then we took our seats
in the church
and the children sang a song about the Ark,
and Hallelujah

and one in which they had to jump up and down
for Jesus.
I can't remember ever feeling so uncertain
about what's comic, what's serious.

Evolution is magical but devoid of heroes.
You can't say to your child
"Evolution loves you." The story stinks
of extinction and nothing

exciting happens for centuries. I didn't have
a wonderful story for my child
and she was beaming. All the way home in the car
she sang the songs,

occasionally standing up for Jesus.
There was nothing to do
but drive, ride it out, sing along
in silence.

TIMMY2 wrote: I do not believe that the masses need ritual, or religion and I most certainly balk at the idea that "some need God".

I beg to differ. I think ritual is beneficial to society. There are studies that show that religious people are happier than non-religious people. Religion has benefits for people. If it had no benefits, I don't think it would be so popular. That's not to say that people need God. Real friends are much better than imaginary ones, but I think there must be ways of getting the benefits of religion without the negatives (such as the need to believe things without evidence).

I don't like this attitude that some of the "new atheists" have that everything to do with religion is bad and religion should be completely erradicated. But religion is not a single thing. Religion encompasses many aspects of our cultures. Religion is the science and philosophy of our past. The problem is that it is still stuck in the past, it changes slowly, resists the growth of knowledge and often actively promotes ignorance.

There are a lot of good things in many religions. We need to keep the good and discard the bad. I think there would be many good bits left.

Athagoras,

Thanks for the link on Darwin's tree trouble. Great read.

CLEARTHINKING,

YOU: "Of course, you can eat cow and be a Hindu."

Sorry, miscommunication there. I was being sarcastic at your assumption that I thought that Hinduism was strict on doctrine. I know that it is nothing like the Abrahamics, as I told you, I've studied it a fair amount on line. I cherry pick from it and add it to the melting pot of human wisdom gained through all of the ancient texts of wisdom from all of the worlds religions.

YOU: "Some need God. Let them decide for themselves"

I do let them decide for themselves. I am for freedom of religion. I am for freedom of smoking too. I think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes if they think that it helps them. But does this mean that I should not point out that cigarettes do not help them? That they only think that they need cigarettes or they only think that cigarettes help them? Someone could make the argument "Hey Timmy, some people need cigarettes and who are you to tell them that they don't". Well I'm someone who's smart enough, and more importantly not addicted to the product, so that I can stand back and say, actually, no one "needs cigarettes".

As for religion and deity belief, I'm still looking for someone to tell me why certain people "need it" while millions of others get along just fine without it. In the case of cigarettes, it is addiction. In the case of religion, it is brainwashing.

YOU: Let's say string theory shows that everything in the universe is made of just one type of entity - a string. Then what? You will still need a valid rational method of understanding what this MEANS.

How could there be a "valid rational method of understanding what this MEANS" when we don't know if it means anything at all? What if it doesn't MEAN anything? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. I think it just is.

YOU: A little humility goes a long way in keeping the mind receptive to learning.

Too true.
That is why I would never call any one religion or philosophy a "valid rational method of understanding what it all means".

PAM wrote:
"If one were to draw that graph of complexity, with the wall at one side, the width of the line indicating the number of species at each complexity level, it would be by far the widest very near the wall, and would taper decidedly as it moved away from it."

I guess that means the my estimate of the relative probability of life getting more complex is probably too simplistic because, as you say, the relative proportion of complex life is small.

On the other hand, (I'm thinking this up as I type) when you look at microbes, most microbes are actually very complex in themselves, and there is complexity in the ecosystems that they microbes inhabit. E.g. microbes are specialized to live in a wide variety of habitats.

Human beings are really colonies of microbes living in symbiosis. Our cells are specialized microbes that provide habitats for other microbes. So really all life consists of complex microbes interacting in complex ways.

BTW, recent research shows that horizontal gene transfer is much more important than previously believed, so the idea of the tree of life is not correct. see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Before creationists start jumping up and down in glee because biologists made a mistake. It does not weaken the hypothesis that life evolved, it strengthens it and provides us with a greater understanding of exactly how it evolves.

Clearthinking says:
"Let's say string theory shows that everything in the universe is made of just one type of entity - a string. Then what? You will still need a valid rational method of understanding what this MEANS."

Why must it MEAN anything?

Farnqaz said: "You know, it has always interested though not surprised me why for so long Jews have been drawn to Buddhism.

Jews?
Ethnic Jews?
That wouldn't make much sense. Why on earth would people of a certain ethnicity all be attracted to a particular philosophy? You couldn't have meant ethnic Jews, that would be a racialization, abeit a rather benign one. But how benign is any racialization really?

I guess you meant "religious Jews" because I hate to assume that someone is a racist, I try to always assume that they are not where there is ambiguity, such as in a term like "Jews". But what "Jews" have been drawn to Buddhism? Religious Jews? What religious Jews? Orthodox? Conservative? Reform? Humanistic? Reconstructionist? And if you meant Orthodox, which one? Hasidic? Haredi? Modern Orthodox? And if you meant conservative did you mean Conservadox? or Conservative Modern Orthodox..... Jews for Jesus????

It's funny how comfortable you are speaking for the "Jews" and "Judaism" as a whole and not at all comfortable with others using similar language in the same context. So uncomfortable in fact you stoop to calling someone the extremely emotionally charged word "antisemite" in a public forum. And yet reading your posts with "the Jews this" and "Judaism is X" I never know if you are speaking for an entire ethnicity, or an entire religious domain that has so many different sects with so many different beliefs, many of which don't see eye to eye on many fundamental levels? I find you to be everything you accuse me of, and I find me to be none of those things.

Athagoras wrote:
"Actually nature has already thought of that. Babies skulls are soft and consist of seven bones that later fuse at about age 2."

Sorry, missed your post and didn't realize Daniel had already been corrected. One caveat, though: the bones don't completely ossify until old age, if then; but retain some flexibility throughout most of your life.

Daniel12 says:
"To Pam, I too years ago thought about brains getting too big for female pelvises to deliver. I was joking with a guy and said maybe we should crack babies heads open after birth and see if this has any sort of nurture effect and allows the brain to grow somewhat bigger and more effective than if not cracking heads open. I suggested we sort of break the skull but then have it clamped shut by some method which will allow the baby to survive etc..."

Ummm, Daniel, do you not realize that babies are born with their skulls in several pieces that only fuse together later in life? See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontanelle

Timmy2,

1) A little surprising but most revealing.
Of course, you can eat cow and be a Hindu. Only about 25% of Hindus are vegetarians. Hundreds of millions of Hindus eat beef. You have to admit that if you don't know even some basic facts about the tolerance and skepticism that is inherent to Hinduism, your inquiry and understanding thus far has been superficial. Look with an open mind and you will see more - that's science.

2) Some need God. Let them decide for themselves. As long as they don't impose their beliefs on others, who cares. Only Christianity and Islam have this thing about superiority and proselytizing. Other religions around the world don't fight over spirituality - until the muslims or christians show up, of course. Violence has been around forever, but violence due to religion has only been around since Jesus and Mo.

3) Science is rational skepticism. Unfortunately, in Western culture scientists have until recently been afraid of offending the underdeveloped spiritual systems and organized religions. Science (mainly physics) is already pointing in the direction of Unity/oneness/monism in contrast to the philosophy of the Abrahamic religions.

Let's say string theory shows that everything in the universe is made of just one type of entity - a string. Then what? You will still need a valid rational method of understanding what this MEANS. This has been the goal of Vedanta for thousands of years. It's not easy, but neither is studying quantum mechanics. If one doesn't understand quantum mechanics after a single lecture, it doesn't mean quantum mechanics is a bad theory. One needs to continue to study and ask questions from the more learned physicists ( a.k.a. sage). A little humility goes a long way in keeping the mind receptive to learning.

Athagoras writes:
"Think of all the possible life forms. There are only finitely many ways to make something simpler, but there are infinitely many ways of making something more complicated. Since there's no reason why mutations that make a living thing simpler are any more likely than mutations that make a living thing more complex, you would expect that the probability of life getting more complex is higher than the probability of it getting simpler. Hence living things gets more complicated. It's pretty obvious when you think about it".

Yes, that's pretty much it. When life first started, it was as simple as it could possibly get. Think of that as a simplicity wall at the beginning of a graph - nothing simpler could actually be alive. As reproduction begins it has only two possibilities - exactly the same, or more complex.

Since it's likely that the first things to reproduce used only RNA, it's apparent that the first step toward more complexity - the evolution of DNA - was so superior that it completely overtook the earlier RNA forms. Since then, life has mainly gone in the direction of more complexity, because that was the way that was open - away from the wall. But evolution is not a ladder, it's a bush. Not a straight line to ever more complex forms, but branching and rebranching in all directions - some unsuccessful.

If one were to draw that graph of complexity, with the wall at one side, the width of the line indicating the number of species at each complexity level, it would be by far the widest very near the wall, and would taper decidedly as it moved away from it.

As a simple matter of fact, single-celled life is phenomenally successful, and comprises by a huge margin, the greatest number of species on Earth. They occupy every possible habitat, from boiling to freezing, from deep beneath the Earth's surface, to the highest mountain top, from oxygen rich to oxygen free (these latter are probably among the earliest, surviving from a time when the Earth's atmosphere had no oxygen.

We talk about the "age of dinosaurs" and the "age of mammals", but it is, and always has been, the age of microbes. We can't even live without them.

CLEARTHINKING,

Part two,

YOU: "Hinduism is for anyone comfortable with it. The masses need ritual and religion; some need god; some need spirituality; some need philosophy.

Here we disagree. I do not believe that the masses need ritual, or religion and I most certainly balk at the idea that "some need God". Can you tell me what is different about the people who "need God" and those who don't besides brainwashing? I have never understood this position. As Richard Dawkins puts it, it is a very elitist position. "Yes I'm much too smart to believe in the nonsense of deities myself but I understand that some people need it". Why? What is the fundamental difference between people who need God and ritual, and those who don't? No one has ever been able to answer this question. Tht's because there isn't one.

YOU: "It's OK to question in Hinduism; no one will come after you. Did you know that?"

You mean I can be a Hindu and eat cow at the same time?

YOU: The scientific method is the best method for understanding the objective universe. But Vedanta is a method of skeptical inquiry about the whole of existence - which includes consciousness, morality, and ethics.

The scientific method inquires into all of those things. Philosophy and science go hand in hand. So does spirituality and science. Science can never get in the way of these things because it is just intellectually honest inquiry and nothing more. It is not cold or void of love or emotion or in a different rhelm than these things. As I always say, if we ever find God, it will be perfectly reasonable, logical, and scientifically verifiable.

YOU: "Take another look at Vedanta. You might see something new, even if it is old. Some issues of the human experience are not just "old", but better described as "eternal". Good luck"

As I said, I have not dismissed it and in fact I use it every day. It is in my melting pot. But nothing is "eternal". 95% of all living things that have ever existed are extinct. To think that any human philosophy is "eternal" is hubristic troublesome nonsense.

CLEARTHINKING,

YOU SAID: "But it is rational skepticism to explore the limits of the scientific method.

The scientific method is rational skepticism. Science spends all of it's time trying to prove itself wrong and hi-fives it's success every time it does so.

YOU: "Specifically, can the scientific method work on the subjective conscious experience that is accessible only to the individual who is experiencing his own self?

It depends on the "subjective conscious experience" you are talking about. Science has much to say about consciousness and thought and altruism.

YOU: "This is an important question and some "ancient" sages and philosophers were pretty darn smart.

Agreed. And some were ignorant delusionals.

YOU: "Also, read what Godel, Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, other physicists, some German philosophers of the nineteenth century have found attractive about Vedanta after being exposed to its "old" ideas"

I have. I have also found many attractive things about Vedanta myself. I use a little Vedanta philosophy in my every day life, just like I use a little Jesus, and Buddhism, and Judaism, and Quakerism, and so on, until I get to the end of the list and I have to apologize to Islam for the glaring but necessary omission.

YOU: "You seem dismissive of the philosophy because of its association with the word Hinduism"

You misread me. I am not dismissive of it in fact, as I just stated, I have studied it and employ it in my melting pot of philosophy.

Eeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaa!

HALLALUYA! Praise The Holy-NO-Man/Womb!

Timmy2 wrote:
"But then where did that life form come from. It's the big question we really want to know the answer to. Where did it all come from, and why? Postulating an intelligent creator for us answers nothing."

My purpose here is to defend mind/body dualism, and spirituality in the face of naturalism. Your spiritual journey is your own IMHO:)

From philosophy, one could argue that not everything must have a cause, only whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Daniel ITLD,

JJ's ad hominem attack on me was as vile as ever. But I'm curious enough to wait. He will definitely try to stir up as much dissension as possible.

Arminius

I agree that Interfaithnation is JJ with a new name. He was obviously banned under his old name, so perhaps in his new name, he will be a little more restrained. We will have to see.

Att: CLEARTHINKING1

Ye are one honest & smart Cooky. But to agree with "ALL" (Every & Any) thing that TIMMY2 saith, is, well, ye know, blindly evolving. Ya Ya!

Timmy2

I agree with almost everything you said. I am a scientist who believes wholeheartedly in the scientific method. But it is rational skepticism to explore the limits of the scientific method. Specifically, can the scientific method work on the subjective conscious experience that is accessible only to the individual who is experiencing his own self? This is an important question and some "ancient" sages and philosophers were pretty darn smart. Also, read what Godel, Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, other physicists, some German philosophers of the nineteenth century have found attractive about Vedanta after being exposed to its "old" ideas.

On Religion: I do not believe that one religion is better than another. For most people religion is an emotional experience tied to many clutural and personal things. Spirituality and philosophy, on the other hand, can be rational. This is my point about Vedanta. You seem dismissive of the philosophy because of its association with the word Hinduism. Hinduism is for anyone comfortable with it. The masses need ritual and religion; some need god; some need spirituality; some need philosophy. Its all available in Hinduism, AND YOU CAN AND SHOULD PICK AND CHOOSE from this vast and messy collection of thoughts and ideas. If you don't like much of it, that's considered good. It's OK to question in Hinduism; no one will come after you. Did you know that?

The quest is for a valid method of inquiry and knowledge regarding profound and sublime questions. The scientific method is the best method for understanding the objective universe. But Vedanta is a method of skeptical inquiry about the whole of existence - which includes consciousness, morality, and ethics. Take another look at Vedanta. You might see something new, even if it is old. Some issues of the human experience are not just "old", but better described as "eternal". Good luck.

RED ALERT!!!

JJ, the ultimate bigot/spammer is back! Stealing in under the handle InterfaithNation. He makes CCNL look like a saint. BEWARE!

Thomas,

YOU ASK: "Has anyone else noticed that there are some that seem to think the life and the variety of life on this planet and the wonders of the cosmos are absolutely amazing if they just somehow or another came about but if God created absolutely everything then it is a mess?"

It's because you claim your God is a perfect and loving being which doesn't jibe with the reality we see around us. Do you know how tiny and insignificant our little planet is in comparison to the unimaginable enormity of the universe, and yet supposedly a perfect God created this vast empty universe just for little old us?

It's not a mess if it "just is".

But if it was supposedly created by an all loving and perfect deity, just for us and God's pleasure, then yes, it's quite a mess.

Att: A R M I N I U S @ Jan.21.09; 4:29PM;

Who are Ye to Make Yourself or Crown one self as "King Of the Blogg [This]???

Please Arminiass et al: Blogger The Christian Now Liberated, aka CCNL is a Unique Breed , a person that 'onfaith" should worship & You Too {not OSIRIS} that hath a TRUE (opposite of MYTH) meaning to History awareness from Past to Future-Bound Prophecy(s). Ya Ya Fag, drag & all dat dang!

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Has anyone else noticed that there are some that seem to think the life and the variety of life on this planet and the wonders of the cosmos are absolutely amazing if they just somehow or another came about but if God created absolutely everything then it is a mess?

Could someone or another give an answer?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CLEARTHINKING,

YOU SAID: It is unfortunate thant in the "West", after 200 years of British propaganda, no one knows, wants to know, or cannot beleive that India has a philosophical and spiritual tradition for thousands of years.

I live in the west and I have been familiar with India's ancient philosophical and spiritual traditions for as long as I can remember. I think the statement you make above is similar to Farnaz accusing people who don't respond to her posts with agreement, of not reading them.

I am not against searching ancient religious texts for useful and relevant wisdom. We have much to learn from our ancestors as they would have much to learn from us. But all of the ancient religious traditions have much ignorant garbage that needs to be reexamined and reevaluated every year. Some stuff needs to be thrown out without lament. "Good riddance" we need to say of these things, not "oh what a shame to lose that ancient tradition". Imagine if the US constitution with it's words defining a black man as 3/5 of a white man were "sacred".

Tradition, ritual, sacred, doctrine, all of these things are "set in stone" type ideals. Don't question it, just do it. Why? It's tradition that's why. It's our ritual, it is our way, it's what we do, because these words are sacred, just follow the doctrine, respect the tradition, blah blah blah.

No one religion got it right. In fact all of them got many things wrong. Many things. The ancient traditions and religious scriptures are to be cherry picked for relevance and this relevance should be tossed into the great melting pot of human wisdom. To try and reconstruct or reinterpret any one of these ancient traditions on it's own and think that it could be better a religion than the melting pot of human wisdom seems to me to be a way of trying to say, "hey, my people had it right all along". "Check out the new and improved Hinduism, or the reconstructed Judaism".

It's just so much hanging on, and ego of "a people". Let it go. All of our ancestors had some wisdom, and they all had some wacked out theories that need to be tossed in the trash without lament. No "one people" had it right. No "one people" have the perfect system or tradition or spirituality. People need to stop saying, "hey rest of the world, you should really look at the ancient beliefs of my people, because we really had it way more right than the Christians".

In case anyone hadn't noticed by now, I'm for the melting pot, not the mosaic.

A seed is a mystery
Sewn yesterday
Begun before history
Born, yet to die.

Laughing, you're like Mother
To me, you look like Dad;
They sleep now without bother
But live in you, my lad.

THEMMODERATE

Hi, hope you are doing fine. Just been reading some of the things on this site, kinda sad, to put it mildly.

Hang in there, He hung in there for us.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

FH123;

YOU SAID: "but when I hear smart people tell me that I must be ignorant to believe that life could be the result of an intelligent mind, I have to say, that blows my rational mind away!!!

I don't think many people would call it ignorant to postulate the intelligent mind theory, it's just that this theory doesn't answer any questions really because now the question becomes where did the intelligent creator come from? That is what we really want to know. We could easily be a colony of life forms seeded from another planet somewhere else in the universe. That would answer our "God" question. But then where did that life form come from. It's the big question we really want to know the answer to. Where did it all come from, and why? Postulating an intelligent creator for us answers nothing.

COIAORGUK,

YOU WROTE: "Religion is really a longing, the inquisitive mind tirelessly exploring the reasons for our existance.

No, that would be spirituality.
Religion is DECLARING the reasons for our existence.

Hence my attraction to spirituality and aversion to religion.

Daniel12 says:
"Wallace, codiscoverer of evolution."

This is a common misconception. Neither Wallace nor Darwin discovered evolution.

That species changed over time was widely noted long before either man - fossils were not new.

What Darwin, and later, Wallace, recognized was the motivator of the change - natural selection.

What inspired Darwin, apart from his observations during the Beagle voyage, was what animal breeders had accomplished (particularly with pigeons, as he was a pigeon fancier), and a reading of Malthus's predictions re overpopulation.

PAMSM

You wrote, " Without matter, they don't exist, or need to."

That is exactly what I wrote.

Then you wrote, "THOMAS: "Have you ever thought about time in that there is only the present 'and that the present is a present to us and we are each a present to each other and it is our choice what kind of present we are to each other'"?

I agree, only *now* exists. After that you lose me."

'and that the present time is a gift to us and we are each a gift to each other and it is our choice what kind of gift we are to each other', do you see what I was saying now?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy2 (and others),

It is unfortunate thant in the "West", after 200 years of British propaganda, no one knows, wants to know, or cannot beleive that India has a philosophical and spiritual tradition for thousands of years. Don't confuse poverty today and problems today in India and Hinduism as the only manifestation of Hinduism.

Remember the US constitution states clearly that a black man is 3/5 of a white man, allowed slavery etc... However, the principles of freedom and equality were true and it took 200 years to resolve the human social issues. Now Obama is president.

Briefly, the caste system has degenerated from the original conception of a balanced society where no one has a monopoly on power - knowledge, wealth, political, and military. No where in the texts , does it stay that you belong to a caste by birth. You belong to a caste by personal "tendencies" (i.e. towards gaining knowledge, power, material wealth...)

Anyway, Spinoza came close to the principles of Vedanta. This would be a long discussion, but two points to keep in mind:
1. Vedanta is a truly monistic philosophy - unity of matter and consciousness.
2. In India, Western philosophy is called "armchair philosophy". To truly gain knowledge means to live that knowledge, not just talk about it. This is what leads to the complex and apparently confusing rituals of Hinduism. Ultimately, you get a complex society with people of all kinds and abilities living as best they can the ideas of nonviolence, tolerance, environmentalism, vegetarianism, yoga, etc...

Tis nice to see that the local Buddhists have made the quantum leap from the mumbo jumbo of dangs etc. to the reality of quarks etc.

"(n) quark ((physics) hypothetical truly fundamental particle in mesons and baryons; there are supposed to be six flavors of quarks (and their antiquarks), which come in pairs; each has an electric charge of +2/3 or -1/3) "quarks have not been observed directly but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally."

Dr. Berman and Professor Lanza's calculations showing that said Buddhists and the rest of us (including our quarks) would reside in a sugar cube weighing 500 million tons if the space amongst the neutrons, protons, electrons, quarks etc. was removed. References (December, 2008 issue of Astronomy Magazine and Berman and Lanza's new book, "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe."

Hi Persiflage,

Are you familiar with Stevens? If not, can you see in his poem the Buddhist influence, touches, the brush of Chinese landscape art?

This is one cosmological fact of many that I could have listed that make life possible in the universe...and yes it can be brushed away by folks like Stenger who basically says, "so what, we won the lottery", but it is also compelling evidence for advanced life on earth being more than just an accident.

"The mass of the universe (actually mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines how much nuclear burning takes place as the universe cools from the hot big bang. If the mass were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a neutron) would form during the cooling of the big bang. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in Stars. This extra deuterium would cause stars to burn much too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet.
On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, no helium would be generated during the cooling of the big bang. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Thus, we see a reason why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible."

I suppose you can argue that non-life produces life, or consciousness comes from unconsciousness, or that DNA, which has the exact same relevant properties as computer code or language, somehow came from natural processes, or that we just won the cosmological lottery...but when I hear smart people tell me that I must be ignorant to believe that life could be the result of an intelligent mind, I have to say, that blows my rational mind away!!!

Hi Persiflage,

Great post! You know, it has always interested though not surprised me why for so long Jews have been drawn to Buddhism. I think R. Waskow and you are spelling it out for me.

Farnaz :)

Pseudo - thanks for some great poetry! Speaking about the Absolute is not apprehending the Absolute...that is what I meant by the metaphorical limits of language. The Absolute apparently has no tongue with which to speak!

'With no-mind, blossoms invite the butterfly; with no-mind, the butterfly visits the blossoms. When the flower blooms, the butterfly comes; when the butterfly comes, the flower blooms. I do not "know" others, others do not "know" me. Not-knowing each other we naturally follow the Way.

* * *
They say spring has come
And the sky is filled with mist,
Yet on the mountains, no flowers, only snow.'

- Ryokan (1758-1831)

_____________

Or more directly from the Master Huang Po on the nature of Mind:

Question: Illusion can hide from us our own mind, but up to now you have not taught us how to get rid of illusion.

Answer: The arising and the elimination of illusion are both illusory. Illusion is not something rooted in Reality; it exists because of your dualistic thinking. If you will only cease to indulge in opposed concepts such as "ordinary" and "Enlightened," illusion will cease of itself.

And then if you still want to destroy wherever it may be, you will find that there is not a hairsbreadth left of anything on which to lay hold. This is the meaning of : "I will let go with both hands, for then I shall certainly discover the Buddha in my Mind."

Question: If there is nothing on which to lay hold, how is the Dharma to be transmitted?
Answer: It is a transmission of Mind with Mind. You hear people speak of Mind transmission and then you talk of something to be received. So Bodhidharma said:

The nature of Mind when understood, no human speech can compass or disclose. Enlightenment is nothing to be attained, and one that gains it does not say he knows.

If I were to make this clear to you, I doubt if you could stand up to it.

So said the Master on Vulture Peak.....

Wallace Stevens was one of the most important American modernist poets of the twentieth century. Anita Endrezze is a contemporary Native American poet. (Scroll down.)

Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird
Wallace Stevens

I
Among twenty snowy mountains,
The only moving thing
Was the eye of the blackbird.

II
I was of three minds,
Like a tree
In which there are three blackbirds.

III
The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds.
It was a small part of the pantomime.

IV
A man and a woman
Are one.
A man and a woman and a blackbird
Are one.

V
I do not know which to prefer,
The beauty of inflections
Or the beauty of innuendoes,
The blackbird whistling
Or just after.

VI
Icicles filled the long window
With barbaric glass.
The shadow of the blackbird
Crossed it, to and fro.
The mood
Traced in the shadow
An indecipherable cause.

VII
O thin men of Haddam,
Why do you imagine golden birds?
Do you not see how the blackbird
Walks around the feet
Of the women about you?

VIII
I know noble accents
And lucid, inescapable rhythms;
But I know, too,
That the blackbird is involved
In what I know.

IX
When the blackbird flew out of sight,
It marked the edge
Of one of many circles.

X
At the sight of blackbirds
Flying in a green light,
Even the bawds of euphony
Would cry out sharply.

XI
He rode over Connecticut
In a glass coach.
Once, a fear pierced him,
In that he mistook
The shadow of his equipage
For blackbirds.

XII
The river is moving.
The blackbird must be flying.

XIII
It was evening all afternoon.
It was snowing
And it was going to snow.
The blackbird sat
In the cedar-limbs.

Thirteen Ways of Looking at an Angel

by

Anita Endrezze

1
Under the divine canopy of moon flowers,
one pale angel flutters
on the breath of an moth.

2
Three figures
knelt in a field of poppies,
studying a harp-shaped map,
their wings folded like cloth napkins.

3
He abandons the heavens,
seeking the psalms of migrating butterflies
as they transform autumn winds
into whirls of flowering light.

4
An angel and God
are one.
A man and a woman and a prayer
are one
with God.

5
We do not understand their dark red wings,
or the songs that sparkle like mica.

We do not know why some are poor girls
or others manifest as orchids.

We do not know that the rainbows
angels toss over their shoulders
are the heavens
sloughing off old skin.

We only know
that their beauty is a language resembling life.

6
The soul drinks from the shadows of rivers
and oceans. It drinks from the idea
of substance.
Yet the soul inhabits its essence
the way electricity dwells in lightning.

7
Why do we look for angels
in golden robes, when the neighbor lady---
in her fluffy bedroom slippers---
offers to bring chicken soup when we're ill?

8
I know glass spheres, wreaths of roses,
bold sunflowers and women with bright red lips
are all rhythms beyond the ear.
What dreams we inherit
are part of what we know
without knowing.

9
When Lucifer left heaven
God drew a line
He dared us to cross--
from Himself to infinity
which, since He is everywhere,
defined Infinite Circles, edges
of domain
that fractured every wing
and heartbeat in existence.

10
At the sight of angels
gossiping over green hedges,
we cry out for our wounded,
our lost ones. We demand
serious seraphim.

11
I flew over the ocean once,
mistaking the white froth of whales
for an angel's lace wings.

12
My heart is beating.
An angel must be writing poems.

13
The clock tocked all afternoon.
It was the present.
And it was going to be the present.
The angel sat,
chewing impatiently on a feather.

My own poor contribution on complexity:

The universe began in simplicity.
One microsecond later,
Entropy began
It’s long, sweet war,
With that which created it.

Without awareness all is simple
And knowing is messiest of all

So many yearn for that simplicity
Of ignorance
Of the Cross
Of the long dirt nap
Of the Singularity before
The universe plunged madly into
The Chaos of Creation.

Hi Daniel,

Most of us know love, not the passionate intense longing of first encounters, I mean the love of a parent for a fostered child, or the love of an elder for a life-time partner, unselfish love; that is the key to understanding what God might be.

If we are then able to connect this thread to every single living thing on the planet, then we can appreciate that God is not some higher 'being' but perhaps part of the creation of life that somehow exists to allows us a chance to imagine what might be possible.

Imagine...

Dear Pseudo,

Very beautiful! When I was a child, I began with sugar and salt crystals, then progressed to some sort of flaky structure put together from I don't recall what. Next came an obsession with obtaining potassium ferricyanide for crystal growing purposes.

Neither of my parents had the vaguest idea of what I was about. My poor father, however, went searching everywhere for it, but could not get it. Finally, my mother wrote to an American crystallographer, a "physical chemist," I believe, who sent it to us! He also sent diagrams, a book, crystals he'd grown. I floated etherwards and float still.

Farnaz :)

Persiflage:

“We only have metaphor to deal with That which can't be spoken.”

O not so dear persiflage
We have the things that make the stage

You need only reach to tap that key
To find some of creation's spree

Words deceive and then confuse
But your hands can touch creation's muse

Experience full range of being
The knowledge there can be quite freeing

DITLD:

"I like this way of thinking. But I am afraid that this way of thinking is not ever going to catch on, and that someone who voices these kinds of thoughts is always going to be outside of the group, explaining things to others, or being mocked and made fun of."
--------------------
I don't know. From where did figuration, including metaphor, emerge? In Judaism, R. Waskow's speaking/thinking is not unusual. Many Jews would probably say pretty much the same thing. That is why "belief" is not, for Jews, the issue it is in Christianity. Judaism is not creedal, is not confessional.

Farnaz:

"Ever grow crystals?"

Crystals of super saturated sugar solution
Then dissolved in a child's joyous dilution

Strange it seems that star crossed atoms
Through time did cross near empty vacuum

To array themselves in Platonic forms
Thence the children's hearts to warm

A metaphor of God is a way of thinking about the possibility of what God might be, with the feeling that we cannot ever know what God is, nor even speculate with any degree of certainty on the nature of God.

I like this way of thinking. But I am afraid that this way of thinking is not ever going to catch on, and that someone who voices these kinds of thoughts is always going to be outside of the group, explaining things to others, or being mocked and made fun of.

Hi Timmy - I agree that ideas presented here should not be taken as the literal truth.

Entertainment and enlightenment in the temporal sense is what these threads are all about - spiritual emancipation is a personal problem.
____________

Hi Farnaz! - love the poetry. I agree with the Rabbi. We only have metaphor to deal with That which can't be spoken. Vedanta is a great philosophy and similar to Buddhism - probably gave rise to it in fact. Surely Siddhartha Gautama was a Vedantist before he was the Buddha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_vedanta

Did Chief Justice Roberts really 'bungle' the secular oath? Who knows. Sadly your atheism missed the humility in Obama's decision. A humility that under-pins the American peoples lives and decisions.

Religion is really a longing, the inquisitive mind tirelessly exploring the reasons for our existance.

Surely if we so easily murder innocent children then that longing precludes science or gene perfection or any urge to perpetuate civilization.

Hi Onofrio,

"The ouroboros swallows its tail."

You know, I've always been curious about the origins (?), early history, of that fabulous creature. Can you tell us a little?

Farnaz

Responding to one comment: I don't have a "concept" of God; I have many metaphors. The Interbreathiung of all life (pronounce YHWH with no vowels). The Old Guy in the sky dancing in a circle dance with all the beings of the universe, getting to taste the experience of every being as the great Circle dances. The hyper-DNA of ALL life, woven of all names in a double helix. The mother nursing, embodying the Majesty of Nurture ("El Shaddai" : shaddaim = breasts.) The dance of Control & Community. The fitted-together jigsaw puzzle made of all the faces of the world. And lots more.

-R. Waskow (on his current thread)

Daniel 12 wrote: "I was joking with a guy and said maybe we should crack babies heads open after birth and see if this has any sort of nurture effect and allows the brain to grow somewhat bigger and more effective than if not cracking heads open."

Actually nature has already thought of that. Babies skulls are soft and consist of seven bones that later fuse at about age 2.

On Spinoza's Ethics

How I love this noble man
More than I can say with words.
Still, I fear he remains alone
With his shining halo.

Such a poor small lad
Whom you'll not lead to freedom
The amor dei leaves him cold
Mightily does this life attract him

Loftiness offers him nothing but frost
Reason for him is poor fare
Property and wife and honor and house
That fills him from top to bottom

You'll kindly forgive me
If Münchhausen here comes to mind
Who alone mastered the trick
Of pulling himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail

You think his example would show us
What this doctrine can give humankind
My dear son, what ever were you thinking?
One must be born a nightingale
Trust not the comforting façade
One must be born sublime

-Albert Einstein

Einstein and Spinoza

How much do I love that noble man
More than I could tell with words
I fear though he'll remain alone
With a holy halo of his own.

Why Einstein Admires Spinoza

From a letter to Dr. Dagobert Runes, Sept. 8, 1932, Einstein Archive, reel 33-286, quoted in Jammer, pp. 44 - 45

When asked to write short essay on "the ethical significance of Spinoza's philosophy," Einstein replied:

I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza. But what I think about this man I can express in a few words. Spinoza was the first to apply with strict consistency the idea of an all-pervasive determinism to human thought, feeling, and action. In my opinion, his point of view has not gained general acceptance by all those striving for clarity and logical rigor only because it requires not only consistency of thought, but also unusual integrity, magnamity, and — modesty.

Part II

The God of Einstein and Spinoza

From a letter to Eduard Büsching, Oct. 25, 1929, Einstein Archive, reel 33-275, quoted in Jammer, p. 51:

When its author sent a book There Is No God to Einstein, Einstein replied that the book did not deal with the notion of God, but only with that of a personal God. He suggested that the book should be titled There Is No Personal God. He added further:

We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether on can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.

Einstein's View of God — and Spinoza's

From a letter to Murray W. Gross, Apr. 26, 1947, Einstein Archive, reel 33-324, Jammer, p. 138 - 139:
When question about God and religion on behalf of an aged Talmudic scholar, Einstein replied:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.

On Loving Your Enemies
From a letter to Michele Besso, Jan. 6, 1948. Albert Einstein—Michele Besso, Correspondance 1903-1955 (Hermann, Paris, 1972) , p. 392. Einstein Archive, reel 7-382, quoted in Jammer, p.87. Jammer gives the quotation in its original German along with an English translation. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the English, mainly by replacing "cogitative" with "cognitive" as the translation of "gedanklich."

Upon a friend commending the Christian maxim "Love they enemy" Einstein replied:

I agree with your remark about loving your enemy as far as actions are concerned. But for me the cognitive basis is the trust in an unrestricted causality. 'I cannot hate him, because he must do what he does.' That means for me more Spinoza than the prophets.

Thank you, Farnaz, no, I didn't know about Einstein's poetry! The little poem is a gem, and very touching, besides the fullness of thought! Talking about reason (structured thought) and emotion...

As a musician, I know that structure (quantitative proportions!) and emotion are two sides of one coin and condition each other.

Yes, we could use the word "sacred" in the sense Onofrio proposes!

Hail to Spinoza.

Gee there were a lot of comments posted since I last looked! I can't keep up with them all.

Skimming through them though, I noticed some discussion about evolution and complexity. Pam mentioned that evolution does not always lead to greater complexity.

True, but over time it does produce more and more complex life forms. I asked myself why that is, and if you think about it for a while, the answer is quite simple.

Think of all the possible life forms. There are only finitely many ways to make something simpler, but there are infinitely many ways of making something more complicated. Since there's no reason why mutations that make a living thing simpler are any more likely than mutations that make a living thing more complex, you would expect that the probability of life getting more complex is higher than the probability of it getting simpler. Hence living things gets more complicated. It's pretty obvious when you think about it.

Of course there are limits to how complex life can e.g. size constraints and such.

Hi Onofrio,

The proto-Spinozaism I needs must ponder.

Farnaz :0

Farnaz,

Another mere *thanks* seems so meagre in response to the treasures you've strewn before us threadlings.

I've cut-and-pasted quite an anthology now. One can chart the course of the threads through the poems alone :) As it should be.

Love those Spinoza themed. His story is so moving to me.

From my subject area: I recall reading once how an eminent commentator on Anc.Eg. religion construed it all as proto-Spinozism. LOL. The ouroboros swallows its tail.

spidermean2 wrote: I wonder why the "common ancestor" who is assumed to be more intelligent than monkeys would not survive but the monkeys have.

I didn't notice that you said "more intelligent than monkeys". I would expect that the common ancestor would be *less* intelligent than today's monkeys.

Daniel2,

Okay. Then skip the post with the caps.

Farnaz :)

DANIEL2,

The Dennett piece was either about memes or about the desirability of offering comparative religion courses at the high school level. I can't think of what else it could have been.

IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE FESTINGER BOOK I MENTIONED, I SUGGEST YOU DO. IT IS A CLASSIC AND IT IS MAGNIFICENT. SHEER GENIUS. ELEGANCE WITH AN EIGHTEEN POINT E.

ALSO, DID YOU READ THE MICROBE POEMS?

To Farnaz: thanks for poems and suggestion of book! I guess we both are up early! I have to go now. I will get back to this thread tonight. Jacobys site is definitely one of the best.

Timmy and Frederic,

Tim:
"Theism is my issue. Science seeks an answer to the mystery. Theism presents an answer to the mystery. To me "Sacred" is more theistic than deistic."

Fred:
"I have a lot of "awe" towards such algorithms and their results, but I never would call them "sacred"."

Poor *sacred*...she could be such a precious word. She's a nice girl, really; just fallen in with a bad crowd.

It's clear that both of you have a sense of awe about the mystery and wonder of it all. Zesta! I'd like to propose we rescue *sacred* from her delinquent milieu, and restore her to her rightful place as a term for that which elicits awe, respect, wonder. No deities implied.

Ah, wordswordswords...swords

Why am I so attached to this waif and stray? I value her qualification of the term *site*, i.e. *sacred site*. In the nation state I inhabit, the dispossessed first people have a relationship with certain features of their country, to which our whitefella word *sacred* pays at least some respect. And it's not an empty courtesy. Many of these places are invisible to whitefella eyes, or dismissed as mere creeks, or hills, or bays, or cliffs. But - in the ancient languages of the country - they have songlines ages long, and are full of intricate meanings, and dreaming paths, many of which relate to finding food and managing game stocks (hence *practical* in our terms).

The adjective *sacred*, applied to such places, holds up a restraining hand to whitefella imperatives to control and exploit, and demands pause. And it's utterly apt for evoking the sense of *country* the blackfellas know. They don't own the land: the land owns them. And the key to living well in the land is knowing its *sacred* songlines and sites. But the blackfella is not heard. *Sacred* shouts.

*Sacred*...like I said, she's not all bad.

Ok, onward! To Pam, I too years ago thought about brains getting too big for female pelvises to deliver. I was joking with a guy and said maybe we should crack babies heads open after birth and see if this has any sort of nurture effect and allows the brain to grow somewhat bigger and more effective than if not cracking heads open. I suggested we sort of break the skull but then have it clamped shut by some method which will allow the baby to survive etc. Of course genetics is largely the reason for a brain and maybe no additional growth would occur at all. It was just something of an intellectual joke.

And thanks to Frederic who wrote to me about Mandelbrot--I remember now seeing pictures of such! And yes I agree that this is a piece of wonderful proof that complexity comes from simplicity! Thanks!

I guess that should be about it. I hope I did not forget anybody. But still I should say it would be a major and in fact necessary step forward for man if he could make genius not something that arrives by chance but rather something that comes about because we have advanced in genetics and can create it at will. If humans can continually create superior specimens of themselves--essentially simple humans constantly giving way to more complex humans by design rather than chance--then without a doubt the concept that simplicity leads to complexity will reign supreme. Another way of putting it: if man discovers how to move himself in the direction of becoming something of a God, then people will cast on the rubbish heap of history the concepts of intelligent design or God. All really depends on our level of control and responsibility.

Daniel2,

For an interesting and stunningly brilliant perspective on the resurrection, see Daniel Festinger. "When Prophecy Fails."

Hi Daniel2,

Did the Dennett piece refer to memes?

To everybody: thanks for boggling my mind! I should first say I got on this kick of complexity coming from simplicity from a Daniel Dennett article Farnaz posted here on I believe last weeks thread. If you read the article you will understand from where I started reasoning.

Dennett says instead of intelligent design or God at the beginning there was simplicity giving way to complexity. But maybe I misunderstood him. But then again maybe not. He goes through many famous names who believe complexity came from something more complex--then he posits the counterintuitive position which came about since Darwin that simplicity leads to complexity. Oh, I should say Dennett forgot to mention Lucretius who I believe (if I remember correctly) was not only an atheist but who proposed the atomic theory (everything breaks down to atoms). He I believe could be considered a forefather of the simplicity to complexity concept.

I better post now to make sure this goes through.

Daniel2, here are two microbe poems. I believe Belloc may, in fact, have been a microbe, and was, therefore, qualified to hold forth.

The Microbe

The Microbe is so very small
You cannot make him out at all,
But many sanguine people hope
To see him through a microscope.
His jointed tongue that lies beneath
A hundred curious rows of teeth;
His seven tufted tails with lots
Of lovely pink and purple spots,
On each of which a pattern stands,
Composed of forty separate bands;
His eyebrows of a tender green;
All these have never yet been seen—
But Scientists, who ought to know,
Assure us that they must be so….
Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about!

-Hilaire Belloc

Lines on the Antiquity of Microbes

Adam
Had 'em

This poem is also known as "Fleas." It has been attributed to Anonymous, Ogden Nash, and Shel Silberstein.

Oh, the Lem book is called "the investigation".

How peculiar! The post in which I just spoke about Darwin and Wallace is number 212, Darwin's birthday (february 12).

Oh, I also just read an interesting book by Stanislaw Lem lately (I am on a Lem kick). A strange sciencefiction/detective novel. Bodies start missing from mortuaries and the case to police is uncanny. There is an incredible psychological portrait of the effect the uncanny can have on a person.

The detective hero struggles with his sanity trying to make sense of the case and the case never really gets solved--instead Lem proposes all these fantastic theories. To get to the point, one of the theories is that certain microbes can have a temporary effect on corpses and enable them to walk away. Wildly the detective and a scientist speculate that this is what occurred in ancient times with Jesus missing from his tomb and Lazarus rising from the dead.

No need to say more.

Borges wrote two Spinoza poems, one titled "Baruch Spinoza," the other "Spinoza." (Scroll down.) They are given here in translation, of course.

Baruch Spinoza

A haze of gold, the Occident lights up
The window. Now, the assiduous manuscript
Is waiting, weighed down with the infinite.
Someone is building God in a dark cup.
A man engenders God. He is a Jew
With saddened eyes and lemon-colored skin;
Time carries him the way a leaf, dropped in
A river, is borne off by waters to
Its end. No matter. The magician moved
Carves out his God with fine geometry;
From his disease, from nothing, he’s begun
To construct God, using the word. No one
Is granted such prodigious love as he:
The love that has no hope of being loved.

-Jorge Luis Borges

To everybody: I just happened on the December 2008 national geographic and there are good articles on two subjects we have been discussing lately: Israel/Palestine and evolution.

The former articles are on King Herod and the looting of archaelogical sites. The latter article is on Wallace, codiscoverer of evolution. The Wallace article is remarkable. There is a wonderful foldout of Indonesia and the famous "Wallace line" dividing the eastern islands from the west. Wallace noticed that to the west species resembled asian species and that to the east species resembled Australian species.

There is also a wonderful description of how Wallace came upon the famous theory. After years of studying species he contracted a fever and the theory came to him (talk about heat of inspiration!) after which he dashed it off in two days in a letter he sent to Darwin. Darwin of course flipped, recognizing what he himself thought up twenty years previously but never published.

Wallace remarkably gave the floor to Darwin, praising the origin of species. What a remarkable man Wallace....

There is also a great article on mars by John Updike....

Spinoza

The Jew's hands, translucent in the dusk,
polish the lenses time and again.
The dying afternoon is fear, is
cold, and all afternoons are the same.
The hands and the hyacinth-blue air
that whitens at the Ghetto edges
do not quite exist for this silent
man who conjures up a clear labyrinth—
undisturbed by fame, that reflection
of dreams in the dream of another
mirror, nor by maidens' timid love.
Free of metaphor and myth, he grinds
a stubborn crystal: the infinite
map of the One who is all His stars.

-Borges

FREDERIC2:

This is for you. Did you know he wrote poetry? Would you have guessed he'd write about Spinoza?

Zu Spinozas Ethik

Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann
Mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann.
Doch fürcht' ich, dass er bleibt allein
Mit seinem strahlenen Heiligenschein.

So einen armen kleinen Wicht
Den führst du zu der Freiheit nicht
Der amor dei lässt ihn kalt
Das Leben zieht ihn mit Gewalt

Die Höhe bringt ihm nichts als Frost
Vernunft ist für ihn schale Kost
Besitz und Weib und Ehr' und Haus
Das füllt ihn von oben bis unten aus

Du musst schon gütig mir verzeih'n
Wenn hier mir fällt Münchhausen ein
Dem als Einzigem das Kunststück gedieh'n
Sich am eigenem Zopf aus dem Sumpf zu zieh'n

Du denkst sein Beispiel zeiget uns eben
Was diese Lehre dem Menschen kann geben
Mein lieber Sohn, was fällt dir ein?
Zur Nachtigall muss man geboren sein
Vertraue nicht dem tröstlichen Schein:
Zum Erhabenen muss man geboren sein.

-Albert Einstein (ca. 1920)

Frederic2,

And then there is the interesting association between Fibonacci numbers and the sonnet, phi and other poetry, etc. Ah, the laws of the universe, the monism of it all (:]

Aroint, thee, Descartes. (Except for one thing: doubt. Always, always doubt.)

CLEARTHINKING,

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was "struggling" with nature etc. I've looked into Hinduism a little. Not a big fan of the caste system among other things. Like all religions, there are some useful philosophies bound up in amongst the metaphysical claims. If surgically extracted from those and things like the caste system, they would be a welcome addition to the great melting pot of human philosophy.

I'd like to know more about Vedanta, about Vedic practices...

If you ever have been just a little bit into fractal geometry (Mandelbrot figures), you find out how the most elaborate, astoundingly beautiful patterns and fantastic pictures are created by a simple mathematical algorithm.

From Google:
"The Mandelbrot set has become popular outside mathematics both for its aesthetic appeal and for being a complicated structure arising from a simple definition. Benoît Mandelbrot and others worked hard to communicate this area of mathematics to the public."

Such algorithms, simple as they are for a mathematician, can be thought of in analogy to the often mentioned "natural laws", the way matter and energy are basically functioning.

Daniel: Here you have a beautiful, visually traceable example of how something "complicated" arises from something utterly "simple". In addition, it is self-reproducing ad infinitum.

I have a lot of "awe" towards such algorithms and their results, but I never would call them "sacred".

There seem to be many thoughtful people on this blog. So a couple of points:

1. For those trying to understand their existence and consciousness (and struggling with nature, god, meaning, Spinoza etc.. in a rational way), you would benefit from learning about the nondualistic philosophy of Vedanta. This is the foundation of Indian culture and the Hindu religion (which no no one can define easily).

2. President Obama mentioned 3 types of belief systems for the first time in American history:

a)traditional organized religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) based on a prophet, single book, and dualism (god/soul separate from man).

b)nonbelivers - believe in nothing/ness or scientism?

c)Hinduism - NO prophet,founder,or single text. It is a distinct spiritual system based on a philosophy (Vedanta) outlined in numerous "sacred" texts and extensive rational discussions going back to more than 5000 years.

Americans are being exposed to different ideas relating to religion/spiritualiy by President Obama. His unique life experiences may change America more in subtle but significant ways than we yet realise.

Onofrio,

PS: Love Spinoza.

Onofrio,

"You've come close to *deus sive natura* there, Timmy. You're nigh on Spinozism! Or Romanticism.

There are so many labels for all of these things now the epistemology of it all gets a little silly after a while. For me it is about the mystery of it all. There is in my mind a great unknown. This blog would not be so endlessly robust if that were not true. I call that mystery "nature" or "mother nature", and I'd be lying if I said that I don't sometimes call it God. But I am not personifying the mystery when I use it that way, it's just me being ironic in my reference to nature.

YOU: "Methinks *sacred* is far less religiously charged than *God*, being a quality/property rather than a being. But each to their own"

Anthropomorphism, deism, these things do not concern me. Theism is my issue. Science seeks an answer to the mystery. Theism presents an answer to the mystery. To me "Sacred" is more theistic than deistic. But each to their own. ;)

Cosmic Central said: "Just think; if we were all as intelligent as Susan Jacoby, there would be no climate crisis - dare to dream"

I know you meant that sarcastically, but I think it's probably true.
Too many people think global warming is just "God huggin us closer", as Tina Fey so brilliantly quipped in her Sarah Palin character on SNL.

Timmy,

I think you'd like Spinoza, if you aren't already a fan.

"I have often wondered that persons who make a boast of professing the Christian religion, namely love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all men, should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that is, rather than the virtues they claim, is the readiest criterion of their faith."

'Tractatus-Theologico-Politicus', published 1670, translated R.H.M. Elwes.

Timmy,

You:
"And yet I use the word "God" all the time as a metaphor for nature."

You've come close to *deus sive natura* there, Timmy. You're nigh on Spinozism! Or Romanticism.

Methinks *sacred* is far less religiously charged than *God*, being a quality/property rather than a being. But each to their own.

Not picking; just a thought.

Susan Jacoby wasn't annoyed by Obama's use of the 'G' word; well, isn't that special? But wait, there must have been something for Susan to to complain about with all those delusioned adherents clamoring about. Ah yes, there it is! It's Rick Warren...of course...he was over the top with the 'J' word - the nerve of some people. And just as predictable, the rational atheist is "disgusted" by the openly conservative Judge Roberts' human error. Susan being the consumate example of the highest power could not make such a shameful blunder. Just think; if we were all as intelligent as Susan Jacoby, there would be no climate crisis - dare to dream.

Persiflage,

YOU SAID: "Timmy my lad – you’re a naysayer and a contrarian and you like to be on the side of right….that’s your nature. There’s nothing to be done for it"

I think you misread me, Persiflage. Naysayer and contrarian does not describe my position on "emptiness" or "pure awareness" or "Nirvana". I gave you that Jill Bolte Taylor link to show you my scientific version of the Buddhist religion. I am on board with the philosophy of it and the energy connection between us all, but always with the scientist approach to it. We question things and hypothesis. That's what we do. That's how we learn more. We don't settle on a tenet like "Pure awareness is our natural immanent state". We postulate such things, but we always question until we can verify. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not being a naysayer or a contrarian. It's remaining open minded.

My attraction to Buddhism has always been the scientific aspect of it.
I see all those monks sitting in all those caves for all of those centuries as a long series of test studies. I think that some wonderful philosophy and wisdom has come from eons of contemplative thought on one fundamental matter. I am grateful for it. It is a treasure. But it should always be questioned and not settled on as a final answer. If nothing is permanent, that includes the philosophy of "nothing is permanent".

As for "liking to be on the right side"? Yes, I like to be on the right side of some things.
I like to be on the right side of superstition vs science.
I like to be on the right side of the gay rights issue.
I like to be on the right side of the slavery issue.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be on the right side of certain issues.

To be a little clearer, Moderate, I don't wrap reproduction up in romantic notions. I can see why it would seem so to a father, and I don't mean to be a killjoy about that - but you asked.

I've been a dog breeder for 30+ years (my latest just got her 4th owner-handled all-breed Best in Show last weekend).

While I always have high hopes riding on each whelping, and am excited to see what's in there emerge, I know that disappointment is also possible, and sometimes tragedy.

There's an old saying among livestock people: "If you can't bucket, don't breed". Meaning, for those not familiar with the term, that you must be able to make hard life-or-death decisions without going all to pieces, if you want to improve your animals. You can't spend a fortune surgically correcting every defective puppy and still afford to continue.

One can't maintain a lyrical outlook about about "the miracle of birth" under such circumstances. Raising livestock of any kind makes one exceedingly practical.

THEMODERATE,

YOU NOTED: This comes right up from google when you put in "define: sacred": "worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"

I'm sorry, I missed that one. I really did look at several online dictionaries and only found the religious definitions. I understand the secular translation of the word, but I'm not really a fan of it. And yet I use the word "God" all the time as a metaphor for nature. I don't see an implied "worshiping" sentiment in the use of "God" in that manner. But the word "sacred" to me rings like "unquestioning worship" which I shy away from.

YOU ASK: "Is human life "sacred"?"

As sacred as gnat life. No more. No less.

It's just not a word I use to describe such things. But that's my hang up. I apologize for calling it out. Your use of it made me go looking for definitions because I was trying to understand what you meant, and I really did not come across that secular definition. I understand now your use of it. Apologies again.

Moderate,

You ask me:
"1. Do you recognize the sacredness and awe inspiring aspects of what a woman does when creating human life?"

You probably won't like this answer, but no. The sacred part is too much religious-speak for me. I saw the definiton you posted to Timmy, but 4 of 6 definitions (including the first two) have to do with religion. See below.

It doesn't inspire awe in me, because I understand the process very well. I always have to smile at people talking about the "miracle" of birth. There is nothing that is less miraculous on this Earth. Reproduction is about as mundane as anything gets - it takes place constantly, and has since life began, billions of years ago. It's the very thing that defines life.

"2. Is consciousness of the details of the genetic code necessary to make it a virtue to create and sustain a life?"

First one must establish whether it *is* a virtue (see previous discussion about over-population). To the extent that it is, no. Consciousness of the details has nothing to do with it.

"3. If yes, are you suggesting that because I can program my computer manipulate GenBank extracts it is somehow more virtuous than a good mother who creates and nurtures a baby?"

Moot, since the answer was no, and again the "virtue" part puzzles me, but as devil's advocate, I guess I'd have to say that if your computer could produce an entirely healthy, long-lived, intelligent, and handsome baby, and your wife produced genetically flawed, mentally challenged, and hideously ugly babies that died young, I'd have to say that the computer-designed baby was more "virtuous." All the same, I would hate to see that ability arise.

Dictionary:
sacred
(sā'krĭd)
adj.
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

"Non-believers" - love it.

I get that maybe some think it's a term less accusatory and degrading than 'atheists', which always has a hint of "heathen". OK. As attempts at euphemisms go , "non-believer" strikes me as imperfect/rough. It sufficed for the occasion. Hey, Buddhists didn't even make it!

What I find hilarious is unlike the other terms, not being religious is simply not an 'identity'. No agnostic/atheist person is going to anchor their life in their non-religious-belief.

Onofrio,

"No need to third me. I was having a joke at my expense on your behalf :)"

I missed that context. My apologies.

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks for all the wonderful links. That last on sacred texts is wondrous. Truly.

Farnaz :)

Pseudo, Great Christian Poet,

Numbers, Meditations, Bible, and Koran--all of them go hand in hand.

Gates, indeed 'twas Bill, of Buddhism, could not get his fill.

Reality burns and eludes with a hard, gem-like flame.

Ever grow crystals?

Farnaz :)

Hi Onofrio,

Here is Arminius' link: http://news.worldwild.org/jesus-christ-lizard/.

Also, you can just google Jesus Lizard Youtube, and see a number of short clips with the little fellow walking, or the equivalent, on water.

Looks more lizardy than I recall....

Hmm

Pseudo,

Good to read from you again,

You:
"Of zero's dance profound with its one love and complement..."

Ah yes, Pseudo, the great romance of 1 and not-1. You verse true. I love how 1 and 0 is just one, but kinda two in embryo. And from that two we can encode the world - strings of things with nothing in between. Hen kai pan.

I can actually clap with one hand :)

Designs gone crazy, designs gone bad.
Makes you wonder what thought God had.

Farnaz,

I've now seen Arminius' christocritter (via Google only - despaired of scrolling) and was pleased to note it's a.k.a. basilisk! Now there's a name to conjure with! Alchemical, chimerical, all very cup-of-tea to me. The mythic namesake had a petrifying stare, I believe.

Onofrio:

Oddly, it seems that we have created more zeros and ones than any other artifact. I wonder what that's about?

Of zero's dance profound with its one love and complement...

The dance of magic number Zero is renown they all will say
By ancient heros its truth was found and preserved unto this very day

Polynomials densely written in parsimonious strings
Almost pushed beyond the page but still the meaning sings

But who with all ten fingers thought
That only one other need be sought?

For all Man's joyous industries and his prolific enumerations
Strings of one's and zeroes are most profound of his creations

But wait! Did we create them of the Yin or maybe Yang?
Or was it we created of the monad's split Big Bang?

For Daniel 12, who believes that it is logical to assume that there must be an "intelligent designer" in order to cause simple things to become more complex things, or in other words to cause life to evolve, and who cannot imagine life without an intelligent designer:

To you, I would like to show you where you have gone wrong. First of all, if a person does not believe in God, because there is no evidence of God, then pointing out logical reasons why God must exist won't help. They have all been presented before, and atheists have considered all these arguments before; they are not new, and they are not convincing.

Furthermore, my contention that logical proofs do not prove that God exists does not mean that a person could not still believe in God; just not based on invented logical proofs.

In addition to this, you are confused about the motivating influences that cause the processes of evolution to operate as they do. It is not "simple things becoming complex things."

Rather, we are, all of us, a part of a complex process, or a multiplexity of many processes. We could not exist as we do, without the previous existence of thousands of compounds, made up of elements, formed in stars, from the fusion of atomic and subatomic particles.

There is no inert "stuff" or simple things, as you call them, that an intelligent designer then causes to evolve into living things. Rather, the essence of life resonates in all matter and energy and in the physicall processes that make all things operate as they do. Our very intelligence is merely a reflection of the complexity of the processes that cause all to be as it is.

What we call natural law are really our notice of patterns in our impressions of order, an order that also causes us to be. There is no sense in any of this of an Intelligent Designer.

I am afraid that God is more obtuse and ethereal to our perceptions, and to our capcity to comprehend than merely casting "him" as a great craftsman. That is, to my way of thinking, once again, casting God as man-like, and just a step up from a stone idol.

Why not instead think of God as "Providence" which has yielded to us, matter for our bodies, energy for our spirits, time for the rythms of our lives, and balance, so that we have a place to be. Beyond this, regarding the nature of God, there is nothing to know.

I always like John Demver's words, "...lie aint' nothing but a funny, funny riddle..."

That is what I believe.

Onofrio - you and Farnaz add the 5th dimension here. Now I don't think we can do without it.

In my mind's eye, Australia and New Zealand are like the mythical land of Shangi-la.....great beer, your exquisite hummus - the mighty crocs are ferocious, birds gorgeous, and the snakes and spiders deadly - and we're still on dry land!
My kind of paradise. I really have to go one day.
_______________

Timmy my lad – you’re a naysayer and a contrarian and you like to be on the side of right….that’s your nature. There’s nothing to be done for it.

But here’s a final dose of Zen for the evening…..the 10 oxherding pictures for your review. Where do you fall?

I was particularly taken with the Tagore poem, compliments of Farnaz – the truth is there.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mzb/oxherd.htm

Hi Farnaz,

No, thank YOU for all the poetry. I said it better a ways back on t'other thread, but you know, writ in water and all that...

I hope you're reckoning well with all that beckoning work. Neck, waist, knee, or ankle deep? Or submerged?

Thanks for the Jesus Lizard heads-up. That phrase alone is tickling already.

Hi Onofrio,

You should visit the Jesus lizard at the link Arminius gives. It is wondrous among the (un)created creatures!

Farnaz :)

Timmy,

No need to third me. I was having a joke at my expense on your behalf :)

As for growing up - glad to appoint.

Timmy,

This comes right up from google when you put in "define: sacred":

"worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling""

Is human life "sacred"? Either way, what would that mean?

CCNL: Down boy! This is not a trick question for some of your favorite cut-and-pasties.

Themoderate asks Pam: "Do you recognize the sacredness and awe inspiring aspects of what a woman does when creating human life?"

Sacredness?
Awe inspiring yes. But Sacredness? I've been combing the dictionaries for a definition of "sacred" that lends itself to biological reproduction.

Pamsm said to Daniel12: "We already have all the intelligence we need to overthrow superstition - what we lack is education"

Hear hear.

Dear PAMSM:

"I have to disagree. She was merely (maybe not so merely) the host. She supplied the nutrients, as a dog supplies nutrients to a flea, but that little fertilized ovum did all its dividing and differentiating all by itself, as coded by its very own genome."

I thought your response a bit odd. Some questions that seem entailed:

1. Do you recognize the sacredness and awe inspiring aspects of what a woman does when creating human life?

2. Is consciousness of the details of the genetic code necessary to make it a virtue to create and sustain a life?

3. If yes, are you suggesting that because I can program my computer manipulate GenBank extracts it is somehow more virtuous than a good mother who creates and nurtures a baby?

Oh no frio,

"I endorse it as such, for the relief of Timmy's retching"

Gearing up to feed more crows are you? I thought you had grown up by now. Sigh.

Hi Arminius,

I've been thinking about the Jesus lizard for several days now. Just googled it again. Everyone should!
_______________________
Hi Onofrio,

Thanks for the wonderful poetry! Have you visited Arminius's Jesus Lizard? It might inspire you further!
_______________________
Persiflage,

Thanks for all the thinking. Keep it coming. When you get a chance, you should read R. Waskow's definition of God in reply to a blogger, following my somewhat polemical post.

Persiflage,

You said: "The Eastern traditions view this as our essential and natural (immanent) state of being"

And you said: Folks have these experiences and continue to function in their ordinary everyday lives without impairment or restriction.....

Can a person function in their normal life whilst in a state of Nirvana?
I am assuming no. It is a place to visit, get your head clear, and then return to normal life with an enlightened sense of being. So as far as emptiness or "pure awareness" being "our essential and natural (immanent) state of being", how can it be when we can not function in our world whist in that state of being. It is a state of being that we can visit, but must leave to rejoin the only life we know.

As far as the things that we perceive as "real" not really being real, I go back to my rock analogy. Drop a rock on your toe and tell me if the pain is real or perceived. It's real, and so is the rock, in every way that matters to us in our day to day lives.

I think that the idea that we are all energy beings interconnected and entangled can be a positive influence on us. But I don't see the value in thinking that this computer that I'm typing on isn't really real. It is real. It's through this computer that I learned everything I know about the Buddhist philosophy in the first place. And the couch that I am sitting on is a real part of my life. Perhaps you can help me to see how it can be helpful for me to see it as not real. This is the part I am missing, I guess.

Persiflage

Your kind remarks prompted me to rethink this. I've adjusted the last line...a revised standard vision.

Zero brazenly displays

its double self, that sages plumb.

The line that hollows it

or fills it with its own outside

is One, bent round forever,

never, shaping "Oh".

Persiflage,

Re extemporizer, et alii,

This honours me too much, though as irony it works a certain magic. I endorse it as such, for the relief of Timmy's retching :)

There is much in Sydney that's outside the ken of this callow suburbane postprotestant - eg. how to win gladsomeness from a beachside Lakshmi. Ann Faraday, thanks to you and Google, is now known to me somewhat, though given that she is confirmed self-less-full, to posit *known* seems somehow churlish. I guess she's something of a bodhisattva, yes? Thankyou for the introduction, O Venerable.

Though Faradayless, I do know a Lebanese baker in West Ryde who makes the BEST hommus!

Timmy - and I must disagree as regards an enlightened state of mind changing exterior reality - it does change the perception of said reality, but since in the Buddhist view the exterior reality consists of mere (projected) appearances without independent or autonomous existence, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers, as they always have been - but with a fundamental perceptual difference.

The difference here is between 'apparent' and 'real', and the enjoyment of the reality apprehended is enhanced to a large degree by the inner unitive experience of kensho, satori, moksha, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Folks have these experiences and continue to function in their ordinary everyday lives without impairment or restriction.......

Do check out the Wren-Lewis link.

Timmy - thanks for the Jill Bolte Taylor link. This is something everyone should take the time to listen to. In 19 minutes she speaks of a transformative (if life threatening) experience that changed her vision of reality forever. She's still a brain scientist, of course.

You'll find similarities in the Wren Lewis experience after he was poisoned - although he was a bio-physicist that left all of that behind for consciousness research. His wife Ann Faraday is a well-established dream researcher.

Perhaps our master extemporizer and poet extraordinaire, the redoubtable Onofrio, knows of their work in Sydney.....

One more:

FH123 says:
"It was intentional use of 'irony' Pamsm."

Glad to hear it, but it didn't read that way.

Timmy asks for suggestions for population control.

EDUCATION, plenty of easily available contraception, more opportunity for women world wide.

Beyond that, I dunno - neutron bombs?

Sorry - just kidding.

And now I'm feeling like a blog hog, so stop asking me questions for a bit and I'll lie low. :)

Daniel12, I'm tiring of this discussion, because we're going in circles.

TWMatthews has it right - you need to define what you mean by "complexity."

As I read your last couple of posts, complexity seems to mean nothing except intelligence to you, and you think that we have to engineer an increase in our own intelligence in order to keep people from believing in gods.

I don't agree with this on any level. A) We can't direct our own evolution to greater intelligence. B) Complexity involves much more than brainpower. C) We already have all the intelligence we need to overthrow superstition - what we lack is education. D) More intelligence is probably not desirable from an evolutionary point of view. More intelligence requires a bigger brain. Brains are very expensive organs - they require a huge amount of nutrients, and we already have a food shortage worldwide. Brains also require big heads. Women already are subject to orthopedic problems from extra-wide pelvises. All babies would have to be delivered by c-section. Then what happens in an apocalyptic catastrophe with no doctors to perform them? Exit human race.

In other words, be careful what you wish for. Nature always has the last laugh.

Persiflage,

YOU: "I daresay a state of enlightenment would not necessarily change much about the exterior parts of one's life - but the interior parts are another matter....and this after all is the emergent source of our perceptions"

The pure awareness/oneness with the energy, would of course alter the exterior parts of one's life. How could it not? What is the point in achieving it otherwise?

YOU: "How or why do you suppose this open experience of one's own consciousness in it's unencumbered (natural) state would impact the hemispheres of the brain? We're not talking about a pre-frontal lobotomy here!"

It's not about front and back, it's about left and right. We actually have two brains not one. They are connected but they serve completely different functions. Our right side is all sensory perception "awareness". Our left side is the chatterbox that Buddhists are so diligently trying to shut up. This could be achieved scientifically (not now but in the future) and seemingly has occurred medically in some left side brain stroke victims.

I promise you, Persiflage, if your goal is to find pure awareness, your goal is to block out all of the functions of the left side of your brain temporarily. I say temporarily of course because you could not function while you are in this state.

YOU: Does anyone understand the nature, shape, color and size of thought - the most unremitting element of our conscious existence?

Neuroscientists are getting pretty close.

YOU: "The fact is, we're all enslaved to it, for better or worse, are we not?"

Yes, as I said, we can't function without it.

YOU: "Does the brain have a quantum element? Some researchers are beginning to believe that it well may have. It wouldn't be surprising, given the atomic structure of brains and bodies"

As you just said, atomic structure automatically means that our brains do indeed have a quantum element.

YOU: Lots of folks don't bother with links, but they do occasionally lead to interesting discoveries. Bon appetit!

You didn't tell me whether or not you watched Jill Bolte Taylors talk on her left brain stroke. Here's the link again in case you missed it. I'd be really curious to hear your thoughts on it.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Thanks for the link Arminius - I love that shrimp!

ME: Life did not come from nothing. It came from the chemical elements that composed it then, and still compose it.

THOMASBAUM: "How do you know that there have always been chemical elements"?

Always? I don't think I said that. I know that there were chemical elements at the beginning of life on Earth, because Earth is composed of chemical elements. It circles a star, and stars are the source of chemical elements.

THOMAS: "If in fact there was nothing, that is except God at a point before time, so to speak, then there would be no materialness, neither matter nor energy, for any of the 'laws' to apply to".

What is God composed of, and where did "he" come from?

THOMAS: "All of the 'laws' could have come into being at the same time that time came into being".

It's important to understand that physical "laws" are not like our civil laws, or the 10 Cs, if you prefer. They are simply the way in which the elements that make up the universe relate to one another - no one decreed them. Without matter, they don't exist, or need to.

THOMAS: "When I took an astronomy course back in the seventies, I was told that with computer models they got within, I forget what but a period of time, I think that it was a few seconds, before the 'big bang' but could go back no farther, have they yet"?

I don't know. It would be speculation in any case - the Big Bang still isn't fully settled science, although it's the best hypothesis to date.

THOMAS: "Have you ever thought about time in that there is only the present and that the present is a present to us and we are each a present to each other and it is our choice what kind of present we are to each other"?

I agree, only *now* exists. After that you lose me.

Zero brazenly displays

its double self, that sages plumb.

The line that hollows it

or fills it with its own outside

is One, bent round forever,

never, spelling "Oh"

Timmy - I daresay a state of enlightenment would not necessarily change much about the exterior parts of one's life - but the interior parts are another matter....and this after all is the emergent source of our perceptions.

How or why do you suppose this open experience of one's own consciousness in it's unencumbered (natural) state would impact the hemispheres of the brain? We're not talking about a pre-frontal lobotomy here!

Does anyone understand the nature, shape, color and size of thought - the most unremitting element of our conscious existence? The fact is, we're all enslaved to it, for better or worse, are we not?

Where does this unflagging process come from anyway? I know the cognitive science drill - let's not go there!

How neurochemical processes may or may not generate thoughts (in all their great variety) or trigger volitional/non-volitional memory and memory recall mechanisms are still unanswered mysteries. Does the brain have a quantum element? Some researchers are beginning to believe that it well may have.

It wouldn't be surprising, given the atomic structure of brains and bodies.

You're observation of dolphins is quite interesting - see below a link to John Lilly the dolphin man, an early consciousness pioneer and all-around interesting guy from the Timothy Leary/Esalen Institute heyday.

See also a spontaneous and life-altering 'enlightenment' experience at the John Wren Lewis link. No meditation necessary! Lots of folks don't bother with links, but they do occasionally lead to interesting discoveries. Bon appetit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly

http://www.nonduality.com/dazdark.htm

Nothing's quite the silhouette

with all these words around it!

A subaltern

has opened up a contra-Somme

barrage of riches,

while our infancy's revealed

in terms for phases

lamas learn.

Pam et al,

And check out the Jesus Christ Lizard - that's right, the Jesus Christ Lizard! It runs on water. Be sure to watch the video.

http://news.worldwild.org/jesus-christ-lizard/

A word of advice to Athagoras - don't waste your time responding to Spidey - he's not playing with a full deck, and you will just set yourself up for great frustration. Best to ignore his childish outbursts.

Pam,

Nice posting about how the animal kingdom can outdo our species in so many respects. One is vision, of course - the eye of the octopus and the squid is equivalent to ours, raptor birds see much further than we, and other animals see more colors.

The champion eyeball may well belong to a shrimp. Sometimes called 'The Shrimp from Mars' because it is so bewildering. They see 100,000 colors, and also can see in circular polarized light, which I don't really comprehend. Here is the link:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/all-hail-the-ma.html

Pamsm,

Thanks for your answer to my post on Population troubles.

YOU WROTE: "If we don't solve the problem, nature will solve it for us, and her methods are never pleasant"

Too true. Got any suggestions?

I certainly think that religion (go forth and multiply) is an enormous barrier. When atheists talk about all of the Harm that religion does, and believers and apologists throw stalin and Mao in your face because they think we are only talking about the wars that religion has caused, I don't think they realize the grander issues that religion has a poisonous effect on. Population control being one of them. The brainwashing of children, global warming deniers, the stifling of science, the misogyny, the homophobia, the racializations etc. This is all before we even get to the wars and bloody conflicts.

FH123:

PAMSMs descriptions sound perfect. Please show us how they're wrong. Thank you

ENDER2

You wrote, "Most current thought(Hawking has refutiated himself) maintains that instead that only what we can see of the moment following the BB breaks down because all we can see is the crest of a wave of space/time. This does nothing to reconcile quantum theory with a prebegining state, but does give physicist something to play with on why the breakdown appears to exist."

Do they think or have they thought that time and the material universe could have happened simultaneously?

I am not a scientist, just a messenger.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy asks:

"I'm curious if you have any thoughts on how humanity will deal with the inevitable problem of population control. I see this as one of the most important matters facing us as a species. Imagine the comfort and sustainability we could reach if we were able to develop a system of keeping our population at sustainable numbers. Plenty of resources for everyone. No one goes hungry. Plenty of room for everyone. "

You're right, it is very important. Right now, if there were some way to gather all of the world's possible foodstuffs and distribute them absolutely equally among all of Earth's people, there would be enough *calories* to sustain us all, but we would all be protein malnourished and would gradually develop kwashikor. And for all the world's people to achieve a standard of living comparable to the American one, would require about 8 times the resources that Earth has to offer.

Population control is something that economists don't want to hear about because all healthy economy models depend on growth.

"Be fruitful and multiply" religions are no help either, particularly not Catholicism.

The hopeful part is that as populations become more educated, and as they recognize women's rights, birth rates fall. This has happened in Europe, and is beginning to happen here in the US, but the long term gain will be preceded by some short-term trouble, as populations become disproportionately old.

And, of course, as the third world continues to populate apace, lagging behind the curve, there will be even more "haves vs. have nots" problems than there already are. It could get very ugly.

If we don't solve the problem, nature will solve it for us, and her methods are never pleasant.

FH123,

You quote Pam, "Believers are the ones who revere *faith* - taking the word of some ancient and ignorant compilers of myth and legend, just because Mommy and Daddy told them so - and, goshdarnit, practically *everyone* believes it."

YOU: "C'mon, are you kidding??? Atheists make that argument constantly on this blog"

I'll let Pam answer for her statement specifically. But she did not mention "all Christians" which was the accusation you made that I quarreled with. She refers to "believers" which means people who take God's existence on faith in the face of science that refutes the claim that God made humans fully formed. Many Christians take that as myth, and they do not qualify as believers. But any Christians who do believe the metaphysical claims of their religion are exactly as Pam described them.

Two things: this site is blocking posts again--says post will checked by Susan Jacoby.

Second: Why is it everytime I post something even only slightly addressing atheist positions people assume I am some sort of religious fundamentalist and trot out the same old tired antireligious positions?

Third: As long as genius in human society remains a thing of chance people will believe an intelligent designer or God is behind things--because of course all complex human achievements have come from complex people--not the simple--namely geniuses. In order for the notion that simplicity leads to complexity to take true root, genius must no longer be a thing of chance--which is to say we humans must constantly improve on ourselves, create geniuses at will. Then we will truly believe complexity comes from simplicity--only then will it no longer be really only provisional

Frederic2,

Good post. But you left out color vision. While we have 3-color vision, which is better than other mammals, excepting the great apes, most other classes of animal (e.g., birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects...) have four or five color vision, and see the world with a richness that we can't imagine.

The only thing we have that's more complex, is our brains.

Usually animals become more complex as they specialize, and this can be a dangerous path to tread, because hyper-specialization makes one very dependent on an unchanging environment. Generalists do better when there's a sudden change in conditions. Remember that 95% of all species that have ever lived on Earth, are now extinct.

Persiflage,

"Timmy, by george I think you've got it"

Whew. I was a little worried that I was botching it, but I think I get it. I thought Farnaz's poem on emptiness was interesting. Is the reward of pure awareness worth losing all that we have now?

YOU SAID: "The Eastern traditions view this as our essential and natural (immanent) state of being"

Why do they see it this way I wonder. It's like saying we should never have developed the left side of our brain, as that is the side of our brain we must turn off in order to reach pure awareness. BTW Have you seen the video I linked from the TED conference?

YOU WROTE: "It can and has been achieved countless times (either temporarily or much more rarely, as a permanent state of mind (or no-mind as the Zennists would have it). One result is an increasing non-attachment to our 'material' reality"

How would we know if it has been achieved any more that we know that Thomas Baum's confirmation revelation of God has been achieved? All we have are reports of those who claim to have been there. In the video I reference, a woman seemingly achieves it in small bursts due to a stroke in the left side of her brain. At points during her stroke, she describes not being able to differentiate between her arm and the wall behind it. It was all just molecules to her. It's really interesting to hear her recount her stroke, but I'm not sure if what she experienced was true emptiness or true "pure awareness". I find it hard to believe that anyone has ever achieved such a state without some medical circumstance such as a left brain stroke. But it is interesting to think about the possibility that we may one day be able to achieve such a state through science, in that, we may one day find a way to temporarily shut down or disconnect the left hemisphere of our brains so we can experiment with such states of mind.

All that being said, I think the practice of meditation and the attempt at achieving as "pure an awareness" as we can mentally achieve on our own, is a worthwhile practice for peace of mind and the peace for our planet.

Thanks for your post. Keep them coming.

PAMSM

You wrote, "Life did not come from nothing. It came from the chemical elements that composed it then, and still compose it."

How do you know that there have always been chemical elements?

You then wrote, "The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and we know that matter is just a form of energy -"

If in fact there was nothing, that is except God at a point before time, so to speak, then there would be no materialness, neither matter nor energy, for any of the "laws" to apply to.

All of the "laws" could have come into being at the same time that time came into being.

When I took an astronomy course back in the seventies, I was told that with computer models they got within, I forget what but a period of time, I think that it was a few seconds, before the "big bang" but could go back no farther, have they yet?

Have you ever thought about time in that there is only the present and that the present is a present to us and we are each a present to each other and it is our choice what kind of present we are to each other?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel12 wrote: "And the plain fact is the vast majority of people will say an intelligent design behind things is more logical than saying all the complexity we know of on earth came from simplicity. The Darwinian view is counterintuitive. How difficult is that to grasp? How difficult is it to see that it goes against the grain of typical thinking? Do I have to point out that the Darwinian view is in such a battle with religion, intelligent design precisely because it goes against the grain of such universal beliefs? How difficult is that to understand?"

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when almost everyone believed that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth. Obviously, just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.

Timmy2
Pamsm wrote:

Atheists generally are supportive of science, which is nothing if not the very distillation of curiousity! We actually read and research to glean the latest findings. Very little of my own scientific knowledge came from "teachers."

Believers are the ones who revere *faith* - taking the word of some ancient and ignorant compilers of myth and legend, just because Mommy and Daddy told them so - and, goshdarnit, practically *everyone* believes it."

C'mon, are you kidding??? Atheists make that argument constantly on this blog.

FH123,

YOU SAID: "However, the notion that all Christians are simpletons who lack curiosity and abhor science is just as ludicrous"

It sure is.
Who's ludicrous notion was this?
I have not seen anyone on this thread post such a comment.
You are arguing against a position that no one here has, as far as I can see.

Labels
words, verbs and lines
serve to define
that which can be named
yet infinity cannot be charted
eternity cannot be corraled

uncircumferenced presence
centered everywhere, within without
cannot be defined
with the scribing of a line

bare of name
source of creation
bearing names
mothers gives birth

in the beginning one
from one to two
one becomes another
thus a mother

feeling separate
reaching outward
for union found within
reaching inward

union remains
movements still

freed of desire, fulfilled in Unity
filled with desire manifesting reality
form is defined
thought needs mind
letting go of thought
we move beyond space and time

no piece, know peace
these two are the same
through unfoldment
in appearance different

the secret Mystery
divergent unity
gateway doorway reality

-Lao Tzu

daniel12,

You said,"Virtually universally people have believed not only an intelligent design is behind things, but that this intelligent design is more complex than us."

The fact that Darwin's ideas go against long-held beliefs means nothing except that man can re-evaluate long-held beliefs as new evidence emerges. We used to believe that mental illness was caused by demons, that women were intellectually incapable of leading people and that to appease a god required a human sacrifice (or two). The idea that because it's something that some or many people used to believe is unimportant as to its truthfulness.

I think your original idea was that something complex could not be derived from something simple. What your argument seems to lack are definitions of what it means to be simple or complex. For example, evolution occurs when a gene transcription error causes a change in the organism so that it now has a survival advantage over its ancestors. The survival advantage means there's a higher probably that it will live long enough to reproduce and pass along the same "error" genes that gave it the advantage.

The forces working against each species are environmental -- like weather -- and / or biologic -- like predators or disease.

As these transcription errors occur, the mutated organism is evaluated if you will, by the environment which we call natural selection. If the error resulted in a survival advantage then the probability of that organism reproducing is increased. The agent that we call natural selection is anything but simple, which is why I question your definitions. An organism's environment is a complicated system of energies, climates and biological interactions. If you consider the environment as the natural selection agent, it's hard to justify the statement that from simplicity comes complexity.

You also said, "And the plain fact is the vast majority of people will say an intelligent design behind things is more logical than saying all the complexity we know of on earth came from simplicity."

Again, the point about what's intuitive to the majority of people bears no relationship to whether it's correct or not. Certainly you wouldn't say that E = MC(2) is intuitive and yet this simple equation, initially supported by only a handful of scientists, has become commonly accepted among most educated people.

The final example I would give is a crystal. Left on its own, a crystal will generate more and more crystals, many of which increase in the complexity of their structure (again, it's important to define what is meant by complex). Why is that so "unsatisfactory" in your words? To me, natural selection and evolution make perfect sense while the idea of a God sitting around and designing a world in which 95% of the species become extinct, seems very unsatisfactory to me.

This World Which Is Made of Our Love for Emptiness

Praise to the emptiness that blanks out existence. Existence:
This place made from our love for that emptiness!

Yet somehow comes emptiness,
this existence goes.

Praise to that happening, over and over!
For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness.

Then one swoop, one swing of the arm,
that work is over.

Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope,
free of mountainous wanting.

The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece of straw
blown off into emptiness.

These words I’m saying so much begin to lose meaning:
Existence, emptiness, mountain, straw:

Words and what they try to say swept
out the window, down the slant of the roof.

-Rumi

The biological notion that complexity comes from simplicity and that there is no creator or intelligent design behind things will never be considered anything more than provisional (by the truly intellectually honest--and they are all that counts) until the day that we humans become so sophisticated as to biology to undercut the obvious fact that every true human advance has come from a genius--precisely someone of superior complexity who totally undercuts the notion that complexity comes from simplicity. In order for biology to have the notion of simplicity coming from complexity truly accepted by society, what has to be done is to somehow advance humanity so that not only will it be common that works of genius do not necessarily come from geniuses (?), but that we humans can create geniuses at will--which is to say that people will be able to create people more advanced than themselves who will create works of genius and all in turn create more advanced people than themselves--ironically in an exact mirror image of the criticism atheists often level at the religious: namely that a creator must have had a creator--and that creator a creator, so on. An exact mirror image because a creator necessary to create a creator implies a constant regression to a more advanced creator--and that is an exact mirror image of a simple person creating someone greater and then this person creating someone still greater...

Leave This

Leave this chanting and singing and telling of beads!

Whom dost thou worship in this lonely dark corner of a temple with doors all shut?

Open thine eyes and see thy God is not before thee!

He is there where the tiller is tilling the hard ground

and where the pathmaker is breaking stones.

He is with them in sun and in shower,

and his garment is covered with dust.

Put off thy holy mantle and even like him come down on the dusty soil!

Deliverance?

Where is this deliverance to be found?

Our master himself has joyfully taken upon him the bonds of creation;

he is bound with us all for ever.

Come out of thy meditations and leave aside thy flowers and incense!

What harm is there if thy clothes become tattered and stained?

Meet him and stand by him in toil and in sweat of thy brow.

-Tagore

spidermean2 wrote: I wonder why the "common ancestor" who is assumed to be more intelligent than monkeys would not survive but the monkeys have.

The ancestor died because they only have a finite lifespan. Their descendents did survive: us and monkeys etc. Both humans and monkeys are better suited to our current environments than our ancestors would be.

Cockroaches are a lot less intelligent than humans. We have a common ancestor with cockroaches also. Intelligence is not the only factor that affects survival.

Frederick,

Great post!

How can we be more complex than dolphins, when our very best scientists can not figure out how they swim so fast? It's true. Our best science can not account for the swimming speeds reached by dolphins. It's just not supposed to be physically possible according to our laws of physics. Quantum theorists are looking into it, but then if you ask any quantum theorist of any noteworthy credibility, they will tell you that if you think you understand quantum theory, you clearly don't understand quantum theory. Perhaps dolphins understand quantum theory.

Pamsm Wrote:
"This statement from FH123 was a real jaw-dropper:
The lack of curiosity displayed by atheists is simply dumbfounding. The great thing is, no matter what your teacher says...you will believe it without question".

Talk about getting it backwards!"

It was intentional use of "irony" Pamsm.

However, the notion that all Christians are simpletons who lack curiosity and abhor science is just as ludicrous.

There is no such thing as "nothing".

If electric waves are transported at a stunning degree of exactitude of their frequency through space at the speed of light, there must be "something" to allow for a "wave" to transmit all the beautiful pictures of the universe, e.g. by the Hubble telescope.

The spiritual concept of "nothingness" is something else. It is "merely" the result of a mental effort, if it ever is achieved - and as the result of a huge effort it cannot be "nothing", even if it is labeled as such.

I find it really puzzling how people can say that not only is there no proof of intelligent design behind things, but that we already have enough proof that complexity has come from simplicity, "self-organization". Complexity coming from simplicity truly goes against the grain of logic--and I am not even really religious or anything. I just use common sense. If complexity has come from simplicity, how is it that no work of genius has come from a simple person? In fact works of genius come from geniuses--in other words we acknowledge an intelligent designer, in fact an intelligent designer of great magnitude, is behind any work of genius. In fact Darwin himself, the postulator of complexity coming from simplicity, was a genius--which is to say his very theory could come from only himself (or Wallace).

The entire advance of the human race has been due to people of great complexity inventing, discovering, and showering the less intelligent, the less complex...And the continued advance of the human race depends on continually arriving at more complex persons. No appearance of complex persons, no genius and no advancement. But I suppose everyone will say "we will depend on the simpletons, because complexity can come from simpletons". Darwin's notion of complexity coming from simplicity transfered to society--which is to say believing that works of genius can come from simpletons--would be a disaster.

We in fact are forced to somehow increase the level of genius in society to advance. And if we can do this consistently, only then will it be said complexity arrives from simplicity in society--which is to say each generation becoming more and more capable of creating even greater human beings. The plain fact is the concept complexity coming from simplicity does not "totalize" until we humans can constantly create humans greater than ourselves. Only then will it be definitively true that complexity comes from simplicity.

As for today we have biologists saying complexity comes from simplicity--but then turning around and acknowledging any further biological advance--any true work of genius in biology--does not come from simplicity, a simple person, but a genius.

If it takes a genius to create complexity how can we say the geniuses we know of have arrived like all of us from a simplicity that self-organized and arrived at human complexity? If we believe such a thing then it comes down to geniuses in the deep past being virtually the same as the simple people and then all the people rather complex (relatively) and having arrived from simple elements self-organizing. What logic is that? Provisional logic and nothing more. And so I suppose we will continue saying the complex comes from the simple but that any true human advance comes from a person more complex than the rest of us--namely a genius.

Hope

The spirit killeth, but the letter giveth life.
The week is dealt out like a hand
That children pick up card by card.
One keeps getting the same hand.
One keeps getting the same card.
But twice a day -- except on Saturday --
The wheel stops, there is a crack in Time:
With a hiss of soles, a rattle of tin,
My own gray Daemon pauses on the stair,
My own bald Fortune lifts me by the hair.
Woe's me! woe's me! In Folly's mailbox
Still laughs the postcard, Hope:
Your uncle in Australia
Has died and you are Pope,
For many a soul has entertained
A Mailman unawares --
And as you cry, Impossible,
A step is on the stairs.
One keeps getting the same dream
Delayed, marked "Payment Due,"
The bill that one has paid
Delayed, marked "Payment Due" --
Twice a day, in rotting mailbox,
The white grubs are new:
And Faith, once more, is mine
Faithfully, but Charity
Writes hopefully about a new
Asylum -- but Hope is as good as new.
Woe's me! woe's me! In Folly's mailbox
Still laughs the postcard, Hope:
Your uncle in Australia
Has died and you are Pope,
For many a soul has entertained
A mailman unawares --
And as you cry, Impossible,
A step is on the stairs.

-Randall Jarrell

Hope

“Hope” is the thing with feathers —
That perches in the soul —
And sings the tune without the words —
And never stops — at all —
And sweetest — in the Gale — is heard —
And sore must be the storm —
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm —
I’ve heard it in the chillest land —
And on the strangest Sea —
Yet, never, in Extremity,
It asked a crumb — of Me.

-Emily Dickenson

Timmy, by george I think you've got it!!

Ok, let me see if I can respond to the criticisms of my post.

First of all, I need to address the notion that the age old belief that a designer exists behind things is the same as believing an ultimate simplicity exists behind things (onofrio's contention). That people have spoken of "the one" behind things is not the same as the concept of simplicity. Virtually universally people have believed not only an intelligent design is behind things, but that this intelligent design is more complex than us. And to those who say a creator must have created the creator and a creator that creator--that logic not only does not refute a creator, is supports a creator because this infinite regression does not mean arriving continually at something smaller but rather constantly pushing toward something greater, something more encompassing. In other words the subject of the regression grows as the regression develops...

As for the biological notion that things complex come from simple elements in self-organizing fashion, anyone with intellectual honesty will note that this is purely a provisional explanation--an explanation that exists like the explanation of gravity and which is made because it is useful, not really that it explains anything. Any physicist will tell you that we have equations describing how gravity operates, but we do not know what it is. We call it gravity for lack of any other explanation--it is provisional. The same with complexity coming from simplicity. We really do not know what is at the foundation, we say simplicity for lack of any other proof.

And the plain fact is the vast majority of people will say an intelligent design behind things is more logical than saying all the complexity we know of on earth came from simplicity. The Darwinian view is counterintuitive. How difficult is that to grasp? How difficult is it to see that it goes against the grain of typical thinking? Do I have to point out that the Darwinian view is in such a battle with religion, intelligent design precisely because it goes against the grain of such universal beliefs? How difficult is that to understand?

The plain fact is that saying complex things come from simplicity is logically unsatisfactory. In fact is goes counter to all we see in human society. Anyone knows a truly complex and inventive aspect in human civilization comes from a genius, not from someone simpler than said accomplishment. You need a complex person to create a complex achievement.

As for trying to imagine nothing or something--they both are difficult of imagination. We need something to not only contrast with nothing, we need something to contrast and compare with something. One thing only is as invisible as nothing existing. We need two things to say we see something. In fact we probably need two somethings to see nothing. One thing alone is not enough to make the dichotomy something/nothing arrive.

Continue on next post....

Pamsm,

I'm curious if you have any thoughts on how humanity will deal with the inevitable problem of population control. I see this as one of the most important matters facing us as a species. Imagine the comfort and sustainability we could reach if we were able to develop a system of keeping our population at sustainable numbers. Plenty of resources for everyone. No one goes hungry. Plenty of room for everyone.

Any thoughts?

This whole "complex vs. simple" discussion lacks a definition of "complex".

If you define it in terms of high differentiation of the abilities of animals through evolution, humans are less "complex" than most animals.

Dolphins and dogs hear 150.000 Hertz, humans 20.000 at the most in their youth (I am finished with 8000, lol!).

Dogs can sniff an INDIVIDUAL constellation of olfactory molecule constellations, enabling them to define the scent of a person out of millions. An eagle's eye has a resolution many times more "complex" than humans.

Sharks have a sense for magnetic fields of their prey fish for which we don't even have a word in our language. Do you "smell," or "see", or "hear" a magnetic field? We humans can't - therefore we don't have a word for it! Complex - lmao!

Did you watch monkeys jumping from tree to tree? In a millisecond their brain has to make billions of calculations about the accelerating force of each muscle fiber, the distance, the angle of movement, the degree of friction in a given material, the probable consistence, resilience and flexibility of the target branch in reference to their body mass. Simple? Get a grip!

How about bats, birds, insects, or camouflage animals who adapt their skins to the surrounding? Are all these evolutionary "miracles" less "complex", only because we have a more elaborate brain which enables us to think in larger cybernetic circles reaching abstraction, which barely compensates the lack of all the feats we have to enviously admire in other animals?

Arminius - just a quickie on 'nothingness'.

Meditators that achieve the deepest states of non-thought may also achieve a state of hyper-awareness. This state would be void of anything or any quality whatsoever, other than an elevated state of awareness.

This particular mind state brings with it the realization of simple unity (one taste) as the natural condition of all and everything (as Onofrio alluded to).

The masters of meditative and contemplative traditions over the centuries are seemingly in complete agreement on the nature of this 'unconditioned' primal state of mind - which is pure awareness without boundries.

It can and has been achieved countless times (either temporarily or much more rarely, as a permanent state of mind (or no-mind as the Zennists would have it). One result is an increasing non-attachment to our 'material' reality.

After considerable practice, an inordinate empathy and identity with all living things begins to arise - because we all share this essential nature. Humans have the ability to realize it, and that's the difference.

The Eastern traditions view this as our essential and natural (immanent) state of being. It is ineffable, cannot be achieved by thought, or in any way categorized, described or defined.

In other words what it is or may be, you cannot know it until you get there - nor would it be achievable if you didn't have awareness to begin with.

As the saying goes, those that know don't say, and those that say don't know....

Hi Norrie Hoyt,

Long time! How are your Maine Coon cats? If I recall, you mentioned that cats figured in Buddhism in some way and that you'd like to learn more about how.

Well, Persiflage, our resident expert (in a big way) is on this thread...

Regards,
Farnaz

Susan Jacoby:

Per my earlier post, I still don't see whence the intense reaction to Roberts' flub. If he has had a seizure as another blogger mentioned, if he is under treatment for epilepsy or a related condition, as another blogger indicated, I would think the public has a right to know. The two points, however, are unrelated.

Arminius,

You ask for elaboration on: "the immanent condition of 'nothingness' is viewed as the essential reality...."

I'll let Persiflage expand, and correct anything that I might get wrong, but in the meantime, here is my understanding of it. "Nothingness" to the Buddhists, is a state of pure awareness. (Nirvana) whereby we find a way to remove from our minds, all of the "things" that distract us from a state of pure awareness. Pure Awareness is, in layman's hippie dippy terms, a state of being one with the universal energy.

Sorry, Persiflage, if I messed that up in some way. That is my layman's understanding of it in a very simplistic way.

I always urge people curious about this state of mind to watch this video from the TED conference.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

A brain scientist named Jill Bolte Taylor has a stroke that shuts down half her brain for a time and she experiences a state of pure awareness intermittently. It's quite a powerful talk. You won't regret watching it.

Ender2 says:
"And I understand about 1/1000th of what I babble but it makes for a really good headache when I try."

Thanks, you've just given me one. :D

FREESTINKER,

"It was also interesting that Obama didn't use the Bible the second time around. (*wink*)"

I have always felt that Obama's Christianity was mainly for show. He seems far too intelligent to hold supernatural beliefs. This is a man who knew that he would run for president since his preteen years. No doubt he was smart enough back then to note that only Christians were eligible for the job. Thus his history (*wink*) of Christian belief. This is a very smart man, to be sure. And a politician of monumental proportions.

Persiflage,

YOU SAID: "....the immanent condition of 'nothingness' is viewed as the essential reality...."

Can you elaborate? This simple-minded old Celt is having trouble with that.

On the origin of it all, I can't seem to find fault with the credo of the militant agnostic.

"I don't know, and neither do you!"

Persiflage,

YOU SAID: "But you are right - the immanent condition of 'nothingness' is viewed as the essential reality, although not remotely the same idea as just plain nothing"

I know. And this condition of nothingness is a seemingly impossible condition to reach. (as much as the Buddhists keep trying. So to imagine "just plain nothing" which would be beyond 'nothingness" must surely be impossible.

Last I checked, FH123, Paganplace is a Pagan, NOT an atheist- which renders your argument moot as well as nonsensical.

Well, I must agree with Timmy - it may well be impossible to think of 'nothing'. This, as Persiflage said, is not 'thinking of nothing'. It is also not 'zero'. It is the absence of anything: no matter, no energy, no quarks, no strings or branes, not even space itself, not even a single non-dimensional point. Nothing. I can grasp the concept intellectually, of course, as can we all - but can we really put our mind around it? I can't.

Hello PAMSM,
Hawking won his Nobel for his theory that the Big Bang was a Singularity where quantum mechanics did not apply. Most current thought(Hawking has refutiated himself) maintains that instead that only what we can see of the moment following the BB breaks down because all we can see is the crest of a wave of space/time. This does nothing to reconcile quantum theory with a prebegining state, but does give physicist something to play with on why the breakdown appears to exist.

And now even quantum mechanics is on its head since the actualization of the Boze/Einstein constant where particles exist in mulitple places at once and effectively eliminates the light speed limit.

And I understand about 1/1000th of what I babble but it makes for a really good headache when I try.

It's interesting that Roberts correctly said the part of the oath that is not in the Constitution ("so help me God") but he mangled the words that are actually in and mandated by the Constitution.

He seemed to know the religious part by heart ... but not the legal part? Go figure?

If Roberts wanted to get the legal part right also, maybe he should have used a script.

It was also interesting that Obama didn't use the Bible the second time around. (*wink*)

This statement from FH123 was a real jaw-dropper:

The lack of curiosity displayed by atheists is simply dumbfounding. The great thing is, no matter what your teacher says...you will believe it without question".

Talk about getting it backwards!

Atheists generally are supportive of science, which is nothing if not the very distillation of curiousity! We actually read and research to glean the latest findings. Very little of my own scientific knowledge came from "teachers."

Believers are the ones who revere *faith* - taking the word of some ancient and ignorant compilers of myth and legend, just because Mommy and Daddy told them so - and, goshdarnit, practically *everyone* believes it.

What a hoot!

Marry,

YOU SAID: Isn't nothing the state *before* something is created?

There is no evidence that "nothing" has ever been a state.

YOU: Thus it's the natural state, easier.

Well a "thus" can not follow an incorrect statement, so no.

YOU: If nothing happens, then nothing is easier than something, something takes effort"

Did you try my exercise?
Have you tried to think of nothing?
Have you ever tried to imagine nothing?
I don't know anyone who has ever been able to do such a thing.

I repeat, there is no evidence that "nothing" has ever been a state. Nor is such a posit logical to anyone who can not imagine a state of "nothing", and that is everyone. Try it. try and imagine "nothing". You will most likely imagine a big empty space, which is something.

Mary Cunningham,

You begin by talking about complex from simple, and end with this question:
"How did something come from nothing?"

Life did not come from nothing. It came from the chemical elements that composed it then, and still compose it.

Your question is only relevant to the origin of the known universe, which was not the topic of the discussion.

However, I don't think anyone has ever proposed that there was a time when there was literally *nothing*. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and we know that matter is just a form of energy - which brings us to physics - astro-, particle, quantum, whatever. This is what you need to study in order to understand.

I freely admit that I *don't* understand, but that's because I've never studied in these fields. That doesn't mean that the knowledge isn't obtainable, or that no one has it or ever will have it.

Susan Jacoby

Norrie--

Good to see you on this thread. Actually, the style manual for magazines and newspapers says that either title is correct. The chief justice is both the Chief Juatice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the United States. Because the latter is used so infrequently, most publications use the former so that people know what they're talking about.

Actually, he didn't just get one word wrong but bungled another part as well. The ridiculous business of Obama having to take the oath again (which he probably didn't have to do, but constitutional scholars are split on the matter) shows that it is important to get something ceremonial right--certainly when it's spelled out in the Constitution.

Hi Mary C - Wittgenstein knew the limits of language better than most - 'what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence'. Just so...

Yo Timmy! Being unattached to thought is not the same thing as 'thinking of nothing'. Achieving
a realm beyond thought is a very hard place to get to indeed....see Wittgenstein above.

But you are right - the immanent condition of 'nothingness' is viewed as the essential reality, although not remotely the same idea as just plain nothing.

D.T. Suzuki called it the 'unconscious' but not in the Jungian sense. Wittgenstein had a distinct tendency toward the mystical, and considered the monastery at one point - all thought being exhausted.

Isn't nothing the state *before* something is created? Thus it's the natural state, easier. If nothing happens, than nothing is easier than something, something takes effort.

You might believe that time was created *along with* matter, in which case time AND matter are something, still harder than nothing.

Susan,

You wrote:

"As I said, the least that can be expected of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is that he be able to remember one line of the Constitution without using a cheat sheet. If he can't, then he should have brought along notes."

You tax Chief Justice Roberts with misplacing one word of the oath. And yet you get his title completely wrong. He's not the "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court". He's "Chief Justice of the United States."

If it's any consolation, the national media almost always make the same mistake.

Buddhists train their whole lives to develop the ability to think of nothing. Most will tell you this is the most difficult thing they have ever tried to do. Nothing is "easier"? I don't think so.

And for those who say that "nothing" is easier that "something".

Try thinking of something.
Now try thinking of nothing.
Which is easier?
Be honest.

Imagine something.
Now try and imagine nothing.
Which is easier?
Be honest.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Why are there trees, rather than purple dragons?

Some "why"questions don't make any sense, and aren't really valid questions to begin with.

Concerning the topic of 'Intelligent Design', which keeps surfacing here:

There is one, and only one, good explanation of 'Intelligent Design', and it is the one set forth by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. See their website here: http://www.venganza.org/

Be sure to check out their section of supporting comments by scientists, engineers, and scholars!

To the controversy on why things are as they are:

It does not matter if "nothing" is easier than "something"; all that matters is, what is.

Itelligent Design is philosophical speculation on the nature of the "laws of science" that govern the universe. The purpose of this speculation is to help provide some sort of "scientific" support for the existence of God. It is all speculative. There is no recognized body of science that it appeals to.

But in fact, the "laws of science" are themselves philosophical speculation on what might be the nature of the our scientific impressions of order. Yet science itself does not have anything to say about the nature of these laws, what these laws are, how they operate, nor even that there are any such laws. They are in fact total and complete specultaion, of a philosophical nature, totally outside of the practice of science.

The relationships which seem to make us perceive these laws are merely our conscious reflections upon the existence that enables us to be.

For Daniel12, you are just scratching the surface, not even that, but you are just brushing lightly on the surface. Think on these things more; there is no need for logical proof, for what actually is; the reality of existence is more powerful than any mental gymnastics that you could ever do to make things come out as you wish them to be.

What I am saying, is that we do not know anything about these "laws of nature" nor that there is really any such "thing" at all, and therefore, it is pointless to try and prove a process of Intelligent Design based on our understanding of these "laws."

Ken, was the 2006 prayer breakfast the one where Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq and to spread democracy throughout the middle east?

It probably wasn't since it would be a little hypocritical to claim God is guiding you in an invasion and then give credence to believers and non-believers alike.

Ken

So President Bush made a reference to "non-believers" at the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast.

Big Deal!

Who, honestly, could be expected to know that? Did it even happen, or do we just have to take your word for it?

The point is, when anyone was listening, at any moment of importance; what did he say then?

Whatever would get him the most votes, and that would not include any civil acknowledgment of non-believers, but an insisntence on the superiority of believers.

Persi asks "how do you know there is something?"

And I will answer with Wittgenstein:

"I know that this world exists".

Also IMHO the second part of Liebnitz' query supports the first,

Why is there something rather than nothing, since nothing is easier than something?

Justice Roberts, having recently suffered an epileptic seizure, is almost certainly taking powerful psychoactive anti-seizure medications. This may explain his confusion in administering the oath. But, more important, how does it affect his powers of reasoning and concentration as he decides difficult cases that will affect every aspect of the future of his country? This is a question that should be examined, not covered up by ultra-conservatives desperate to retain a majority of extremists on the court.

"Most important, he is the only modern president to include "nonbelievers" in his litany to Americans of diverse faiths."

George W. Bush at the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast:

"In our country, we recognize our fellow citizens are free to profess any faith they choose, or no faith at all. You're equally American if you're a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim. You're equally American if you choose not to have faith."

One of many similar pronouncements by many modern presidents, unless Ms. Jacoby believes that "modern presidents" begins with Obama. It's so easy to maintain your delusions when you keep your mind uncluttered by facts.

CCNL you repeat yourself, constantly. So let me reinterate. Those are numbers for amateurs compared to our illegal war on Iraq, which I won't repeat. Hopefully our nation will not repeat them either.

And Israel has exiled millions from their ancestral homes, and kills 1000 Palestinians for every Israeli killed. Paraphrasing Chris Hitchens, I hate Hamas, but that does not mean that Israel is not responsible for the situation by stealing the Palestinian nation.

CCNL - the problem with the Berman calculations, to wit: protons and neutrons are now thought to consist of even more elementary 'particles - 3 quarks each, to be exact.

Where do all the quarks go? Let's face it - you got nothin'!!

PAGANPLACE:
" DNA stores more information in a smaller space than the most advanced supercomputer in the world...complex and specific information."

That makes proteins, yes. The process isn't mysterious.

Many kinds of protein molecules, which are needed to make a cell function. They require complex direction, not just redundant structure.
The lack of curiosity displayed by atheists is simply dumbfounding. The great thing is, no matter what your teacher says...you will believe it without question.

When I watched the swearing-in on tv, I thought that Obama had mangled it. Then, I was disappointed in him, and let down, not because it is anything bad he did, but I could just imagine all of his Fox-News enemies and their allies, holding THAT over his head for FOUR years. I was so let-down, that I could not even really enjoy his speech. That is how SCREWED-up we are; how screwed up the right-wing haters are.

Then later, they replayed it, it was John Roberts who screwed up, not pausing at the right place for Obama to repeat his part, and skipping the word "faithfully" and saying "President TO the Untied States" instead of "OF the Unted States."

Of course, people who have put away their childish things know that the oath is not a magical incantation a-la Harry Potter, and there is no magical power in the oath that makes a President, but the oath is instead, something that the President pledges on his honer to do. And it is not really important or meaningful, if they had a little trouble reciting the words.

However...

The Fox-News simpletons, in their childish ways, contested the very legitimacy of Obama's Presidency, SO; he took it again.

Now, I suppose, the complaint will be that he did not use a Bible the second time.

I, for one, feel gloriouslsy elated, that President Bush is gone, and a new President has arrived to take his place.

Barak Obama is more than the first black President; is also a good and excellent person; he is, by far, the best of all the Democratic or Republican candidates who ran.

And as for Rick Warren's prayer, it was lousy and forgettable. It was showy and pretentious, all the things that a sincere prayer would not have been. He did not help his cause, the cause of Christianity, and I think he is not quite so thoughtful or deep as I had previously believed him to be.

The energy and volume related to the human species were reviewed recently by Bob Berman of Astronomy Magazine. No dangs etc. needed, just pure physics.

An excerpt:

" We live in an unusually dense environment; human fingertips alone tingle with a trillion quintillion atoms, and forget all the unloved fat diligently added at fast-food emporiums. Over 99.9 percent of our body mass consists solely of protons and neutrons, each exactly as dense as a neutron star. But these hyper-compact particles are each a gnat in an empty stadium. If we could suck out all the wasteful space within and between our body atoms and pack the entire human race down to its actual solids, it could all be presented with trumpets and fanfare as a single sugar cube weighing 500 million tons. Remove all our hot air and Homo sapiens is 1 cc, ready to party."

The math is rather easy. Do the calculations for today's homework.

Globalone

You have freedom of speech to say whatever you want.

You always hate everything Susan Jacoby says about anything. You already don't like what she is GOING to write, even before she writes it.

Why turn every one of her essays into such gut-wrenching drama? You have freedom of speech.

ender2 :

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent the USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,402 combat and 822 non-combat) and 90,253 – 98,521I raqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror: (available on request)

"As for athiests...I have to ask...if a finite mind can emerge when matter reaches a certain level of complexity, why couldn't a far greater mind, GOD if you will, emerge when millions of brain states reach a greater lever of consciousness?"

--------

At what point does brain matter becomes "mind"?

What is the mechanism for interconnecting these millions of brain states?

Is God's existence therefore contingent upon our existence?

Onofrio - you're the man!!

_______

Mary C & Liebnitz ask - 'why is there something rather than nothing'?

How do you know there is really something?

Check out the tantric ideas on energy and form just below. The mythologies of Quantum East & quantum West are not so very different.....

Three aspects of energy -

Sentient beings have their energy manifested in 3 aspects:

'dang' (Wylie: gDangs)
'rolpa' (Wylie: Rol-pa)
'tsal' (Wylie: rTsal)
Energy of an individual on the dang level is essentially infinite and formless.

In the form of rolpa, energy forms appear as though seen with 'the eye of the mind'. Many practices of thödgal and yangthig work on the basis of functioning of the rolpa aspect of individual's energy. It is also the original source of the sambhogakaya deities visualized in Buddhist tantric transformational practices and of manifestations of one hundred peaceful and wrathful deities in bardo.

Tsal is the manifestation of the energy of the individual him or herself, as apparently an 'external' world.[15] The mind of a sentient being is also tsal energy when it is 'contaminated' by the karmic 'winds' (Tibetan: rlung).[citation needed] Certain practices stop the karmic winds of the body and therefore allow the energy of tsal to be experienced by itself.

The interplay of these energies explain the 'thoughtform' or 'tulpa' (Tibetan: sprul pa) phenomenon, the logistics of the Trikaya doctrine, the yidam sadhana, bardo visions, Clear Light (Tibetan: 'od gsal), emergence and the logistics of the doctrine of Pratītyasamutpāda, they also explain the 'play' (Sanskrit: lila; Tibetan: kun tu rtse) of the Five Pure Lights (Tibetan: 'od lnga) and the arising of a 'Creation' without a Creator deity or a Prime Cause that is the particular 'view' (Tibetan: lta ba) and hallmark of Buddhism.

" FH123
"The problem evolutionists have is that they take a theory that explains some things about biology, and they try to explain everything with it. Civil War era thinking does not sufficiently explain the biological world in the information age."

Err, that's the beauty of science, ...evolutionary biology hasn't been in 'Civil war era thinking' since the Civil War. If some Christian fundamentalists want to project their notion of 'scripture' onto science and say, 'You worship Darwin' or whatever you're trying to say, ...that doesn't make it true.

" DNA stores more information in a smaller space than the most advanced supercomputer in the world...complex and specific information."

That makes proteins, yes. The process isn't mysterious.

" To me, explaining the naturalistic evolution of this kind of inforation is a hurdle that evolutionary biologist can't climb...we all know that information does not create itself."

Once again, just because the *scale* of something seems beyond your grasp doesn't mean it's incomprehensible. Just because there are a lot of grains of sand on a beach doesn't mean sand is impossible. This is an argument from ignorance and a fallacy.

Frankly, I look forward to seeing science taught in the schools again, as well as seeing interfaith and multicultural awareness not treated like dirty words.

"How did something come from nothing?"

---------

When was it proven that "something" hasn't always existed?

How does the answer "God did it" have any more explanatory power than saying "Mr. X did it"?

How does one go from a putative "first cause" all the way to proving the existence of the God of Abraham, or any other personal, intercessionary, supernatural entity for that matter?

Glob Alone - Good ridance!

CCNL-
600,000 dead Iraqi Citizens.
3,000,000 million Iraqi exiles(including the largest population of Jews and Christians of any Arabic nation) with no home to return to.
Unqualified support for the terrorist state of Israel that has refused for 60 yrs to allow the UN designated State of Palestine to exist.

Dead civilians are just as dead whether by a terrorist car bomb or collateral damage except collateral damage has proven more effective at creating death.

Ms. Jacoby!

Thanks for another great post. I was also encouraged and delighted by Pres. Obama tip O' tha' hat to secularist, and even more so by his promise to return science to its rightful place.

And I experienced great joy in the morose face of Shrub as the camera happened to pan to him during the statement about science. That creature has retarded the advancement of science and rationality in this nation so badly that it may be one of his very worst crimes against humanity.

Farnaz,

I previously brought up the tone of Ms. Jacoby's comments regarding the Supreme Court justice and was quickly rebuffed. While our great nation is founded on the principles of free speech, such total lack of respect is far too accepted and commonplace now. I'm afraid the idea of disagreement with respect and humility have passed some people by.

I don't know if it's arrogance, insecurity, or the continual desire to mock and belittle those with different viewpoints. It's hard to imagine how Obama will "unite" the country when people such as Ms. Jacoby are holding the microphones.

The problem evolutionists have is that they take a theory that explains some things about biology, and they try to explain everything with it. Civil War era thinking does not sufficiently explain the biological world in the information age. DNA stores more information in a smaller space than the most advanced supercomputer in the world...complex and specific information. To me, explaining the naturalistic evolution of this kind of inforation is a hurdle that evolutionary biologist can't climb...we all know that information does not create itself.

As for athiests...I have to ask...if a finite mind can emerge when matter reaches a certain level of complexity, why couldn't a far greater mind, GOD if you will, emerge when millions of brain states reach a greater lever of consciousness? You can't logically stop the process wherever you want, you have to admit the possibility that matter could continue its upward advance.

Athagoras wrote " We look like monkeys because we have a recent common ancestor with monkeys. "

I wonder why the "common ancestor" who is assumed to be more intelligent than monkeys would not survive but the monkeys have.

Now I know why evolution continue to sell. It's funny and comedy always sells.

Eyes are rolling, heads are shaken,
at the mangling of the script.
A dodo would be less mistaken
than the justice as he tripped
and marred the epic ferment,
shadowed bright new day with farce,
near eclipsed the hopeful moment
like a sudden, mooning ars-.

Of those the Great Okay advises,
one invoked, with pious gall,
the Nazarene in several guises,
t'other color-coded all.
At large, in tribes of every stripe,
were mutterings on what was meant:
Wrong god! No god! God! the gripe,
as brows were gripped in malcontent.

Despite the skimbling awkwardness,
around him, prez-elect retained
his poise, endured the swearing mess,
as did his wife, though she looked pained
the moment when the preacher man
spoke benediction for her girls:
her gaze foreknew the costly span
of public glare that fame unfurls.

A quote:

Limits of human knowledge. The speed of
light is the absolute speed limit in space. That means our knowledge
of astronomical phenomena is allways and ever out of date. Now, out of
date information has to carry some degree of uncertainty, increasingly
so with distance of time being involved. Now, today we can observe
objects as far away as 13 billion lights years. That means we are
observing those objects as they were that time ago. That means we have
no knowledge about their subsequent fate.

A quote:

Limits of human knowledge. The speed of
light is the absolute speed limit in space. That means our knowledge
of astronomical phenomena is allways and ever out of date. Now, out of
date information has to carry some degree of uncertainty, increasingly
so with distance of time being involved. Now, today we can observe
objects as far away as 13 billion lights years. That means we are
observing those objects as they were that time ago. That means we have
no knowledge about theyr subsequent fate.

A quote:

Limits of human knowledge. The speed of
light is the absolute speed limit in space. That means our knowledge
of astronomical phenomena is allways and ever out of date. Now, out of
date information has to carry some degree of uncertainty, increasingly
so with distance of time being involved. Now, today we can observe
objects as far away as 13 billion lights years. That means we are
observing those objects as they were that time ago. That means we have
no knowledge about theyr subsequent fate.

You're right Pamsm, surgery is not genetically passed on to future generations. I was speaking of Thomas' discussion on attempting to make humans perfect and probably took that statement too literally.

Pam,

"I have to disagree. She was merely (maybe not so merely) the host. She supplied the nutrients, as a dog supplies nutrients to a flea, but that little fertilized ovum did all its dividing and differentiating all by itself, as coded by its very own genome."

That's too cold for me.

We view her creative act to nurture new life as a fully informed and sacred choice. With that goes the responsibility to nurture and care for the resulting children and help them find a place in the world.

By the way, would it change matters if my computer had a readable copy of both of our genomes and could write a new (possibly improved) script for a life in DNA which could be fertilized in vitro and raised?

"Glad to know you are a man - I had assumed so, but then Timmy referred to you as "she", and I was confused. :)"

It does happen from time to time that people ask about my gender. Perhaps it is something about the supposition that everyone (like Palestinians AND Jews) have to have a chance to live and prosper? Or vocal agreement with Starhawk's mostly unnoticed article in which she opined that it can never be right to kill or harm innocent children (no matter what the "sins of the fathers" were)? I wonder why basic humanity is considered feminine? Doesn't speak well for my fellow men, I guess.

Pam S M,

The argument is not so much how the complex came from the simple (one of Anselm's proofs of God that was demolished long before Dawkins punted on it in "The God Delusion") but Liebnitz's much more interesting question:

"Why is there something rather than nothing since nothing is easier than something?"

The philosopher posed this query over 300 years ago and it has never been answered adequately .

Its--how--ancilliary remains unanswered as well, by science or metaphysics:

"How did something come from nothing?"

MC
London

Agapn9:

Your drivel is still drivel. There is no such thing as a 'practical' atheist. One is either an atheist or one isn't. Your entire set of posts is just anti-atheist hate mongering.

BTW, I know quite well what I believe and I'm not particularly angry. I do get irritated by anti-atheist slurs which is what your posts are.

Can't you see? 2.9563 apples is almost exactly the same number as 3.0000 oranges. Therefore, apples are in fact oranges!

Pamsm,

Hmmmm???? So one rogue vote out of 69,456,897. But if you had two BO types running in the Democratic primary, one pro-life, one pro-death, which one would you choose??

spidermean2 wrote:
"Looking like a monkey does not mean you are monkeys or came from monkeys. So please stop this stupidity."

Correct. We are not monkeys and we did not come from monkeys. We look like monkeys because we have a recent common ancestor with monkeys. That's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in several independent ways.

So, yes, spidermean2, please stop the stupidity!

evolution, evolution...

Wake up guys. Looking like a monkey does not mean you are monkeys or came from monkeys. So please stop this stupidity.

CCNL,
Enough with this one. The election of Barack Obama was *not* decided by one-issue voters - particularly not by *this* issue at a time when so many need addressing.

I voted for him and it had nothing to do with abortion. Give it up.

To be clear, human-directed human evolution would require genetic engineering like that currently done on certain agricultural plants and animals - snipping bits of DNA out of the nucleus of an egg, and replacing them with other snippets of DNA, having a salubrious effect on the resulting baby.

This is *possible*, but such tinkering can have unintended consequences. Remember Dolly, the cloned sheep? Even as a lamb, she had "old" cells - the telomeres on her chromosomes were as short as those of the sheep that donated the cell for cloning, giving Dolly fewer possible cell divisions than a newborn should expect.

For this reason (unintended consequences), I don't believe that any such human tinkering will ever be considered ethical or be approved - certainly not in this country, and probably not anywhere.

Thomas writes:
"You wrote, 'We cannot direct our own evolution, nor should we desire it.'

This is something that you think humans can't do and should not even attempt to do but do you truly think that there are not some very intelligent people out there that disagree with you"?

Not any that I'd classify as "*very* intelligent."

THOMAS: "There has been an ethical question made by some to the effect: Just because we can do something, should we do it"?

I don't think that directing our own evolution is something that we *can* do. Nature has a way of smacking down that kind of hubris.

THOMAS: "Do you not think that there are some that will try to 'create' tru science the 'perfect' human being"?

Maybe, but this is not the same as directing evolution. See below:

TWMATTHEWS: "Now, about the attempts at making the perfect human. We do this all the time. We try to make medicines that will perfectly vaccinate people from disease. We undertake surgery to correct imperfections like cleft pallets, deformed feet and a myriad number of other 'imperfections' that crop up during the transcription of genes from a mother/father to a baby".

But this is not directed evolution - just the improvement of an individual. The surgery isn't heritable. And medications/vaccinations only affect the evolution of the viruses and bacteria that they're meant to control - often not in the way that we'd wish. The resistant organisms are the ones left to reproduce, and we end up with a new organism that we have no defense against. That's what I meant above about nature and hubris.

Susan noted: "What he did not do was invoke a Higher Power as a source of and a justification for public policy."

What BO did do though was ride to the presidency on the backs of ~ 35 million aborted babies.

To wit:

arack H. Obama won the presidential election not because of his race or good looks or ability to make a good speech. He won because of the ~70 million "mothers and fathers" of aborted children.

The math: Roe vs. Wade was decided
in 1973. Since that time (at least until 2003), the CDC recorded and published the number of abortions done in the USA each year. The rate on average was one million abortions per year. That comes to ~35 million abortions and ~70
million voting-age "mothers and fathers" of these aborted children.

(The final popular vote count was 69,456,897 for Obama and 59,934,786 for McCain. )

And of course they voted for the pro-choice candidate, one Barack H. Obama, the
first president elected by this growing demographic. The headlines should
therefore not read, "The First African-American Elected To The Presidency".
It should read:

"The First President Elected by the "Mothers and Fathers" of 35 Million Aborted Children".

The result would have been the same for any pro-choice candidate who won the primary election.

Arminius, Arminius, Arminius,

Hmmm, we see you are still having trouble with Reality and Truth especially in regards to the historic and theological flaws and errors of Christianity especially the Episcopalian variety.

Might want to start reading some of the books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Daniel12,
Now that you've been slapped around by Timmy and Onofrio, I'll pile on a bit. :)

DANIEL12:
"For most of human history humans have assumed that only something more complex than something complex can create something complex".

and

"It has only been since Darwin that the counterintuitive position that complex things can come from simple things has arisen".

You're conflating two different things. The first statement speaks to agency, the second to the things that the agent acts upon (or not).

Yes, to *make* something complex, requires that the maker be *more* complex. This is an argument used to defend the existence of gods, saying that complex things require a maker, therefore God. The reply being that since God would have to be even more complex, and complex things require a maker, who made God?

To have complexity *arise* from simpler things, with or without agency, is as common as cornfields in Iowa. It's neither "counterintuitive", nor lacking in proofs. I gave you several examples in my previous post - I can't believe that you need more.

DANIEL12: "...but positing a creator or intelligent designer still makes more sense than saying the complexity of life just rose from simple elements in self-organizing fashion. That virtually states that something can come from nothing".

No it doesn't. It says that complex things came from simpler elements. Elements are, by definition, "things."

DANIEL12: " All to many people will not be swayed from the religious or intelligent design position--for humans are just...that way. Often even great proof to the contrary of a person's belief is not enough. People are pretty damn stubborn".

Stubborn, but not completely uneducable. Some ideas are given up reluctantly, and the more people are invested in them (by time, money, and/or the pleasantness of the belief), the more difficult they are to overcome. Even so, we've overcome many such ideas in human history, and this one will eventually fall, too; but not any time soon.

DANIEL12: "...there is no more satisfying clinch of the argument than we humans not only taking our evolution into our own hands, but clearly creating a more complex, adaptive form of ourselves out of our quite simple minds of today. We must prove that the simple leads to the complex by we humans continually creating better forms of ourselves..."

And just how would you propose that we do that, Daniel? This is pure science fiction, and utter nonsense.

Moderate,
Glad to know you are a man - I had assumed so, but then Timmy referred to you as "she", and I was confused. :)

You said:
"I am sure that my wife would take exception to that. True, she did not know the base pairs of the human genome by heart, but I am here to tell you she was a 'human agency'".

I have to disagree. She was merely (maybe not so merely) the host. She supplied the nutrients, as a dog supplies nutrients to a flea, but that little fertilized ovum did all its dividing and differentiating all by itself, as coded by its very own genome.

Susan Jacoby:

"The taking of the presidential oath is a solemn moment, and it's disgusting that the chief justice of the Supreme Court messed it up."

Interesting essay. On the rhetoric of the occasion, I'm mostly in agreement, having, in fact, made one or two or the same points yesterday.
There are some things I'd like to add, but can't right now; work beckons with a heavy hand.

One thing I'm curious about is your intense response to Roberts' error. Ideologically, he and I could not be further apart, and I suspect that the same is true of you and his eminence. I confess I was surprised, abashedly admit I normally wouldn't allow for, let alone expect, such a mistake from a legal genius or, indeed, from a genius of any kind. Indeed, I would feel justified in tacitly assuming that a nongenius with the task assigned to Roberts would handle it with aplomb.

Still, whence the angry sarcasm? Why characterize the mistake as "disgusting"? In no way am I objecting. I'm simply curious at the intensity of your reaction. Do you attach some significance to his error, a meaning or intent that may have escaped some, including yours truly?

Farnaz

TheModerate,

Depending on how you define 'battle', Susan may be right about Hiroshima killing more than any conventional battle. If you speak of deaths in a battle that lasted weeks or months, then she is wrong. If you talk about deaths in a single day, then she is probably right. Consider this: let us take 70,000 deaths at Hiroshima as an immediate consequence of the blast. Believe it or not, this exceeds any reliable historical record of single one-day deaths in a battle. The one that comes closest - and this may surprise you - occurred in 216 BC(E), the Battle of Cannae, where Hannibal (without elephants) surrounded an entire Roman army and put them all to the sword. 60,000 Roman dead. And we all know the victors write the history - Rome won the war, and admitted to the casualty figures in their own histories.

Pam:

"No human agency is required to make that fertilized egg into a human."

I am sure that my wife would take exception to that. True, she did not know the base pairs of the human genome by heart, but I am here to tell you she was a "human agency".

Daniel12,

You:
"So what those sympathetic to the biological position must strive to do is to clinch the argument in their favor--and there is no more satisfying clinch of the argument than we humans not only taking our evolution into our own hands, but clearly creating a more complex, adaptive form of ourselves out of our quite simple minds of today. We must prove that the simple leads to the complex by we humans continually creating better forms of ourselves--thus proving it definitely is possible and we do not have to posit a creator or intelligent design behind existence. That is all I am trying to say...."

There are two imperative *musts* in there, Daniel, so I suppose you feel quite strongly about this, you science-fictionalist prophet.

As other posters have already pointed out, we poor forked creatures have been improving our hazardous lot in all sorts of ways for a long time. You seem to be advocating that an intensification of that process will necessarily replace one myth with another - a *Good Thing*. In the corner to my right: divine complexity creating less complex lifeforms; in the corner to my left: human simplicity engineering more complex, improved versions of itself, even new lifeforms. Left beats right, in your envisioned imperatives.

An underlying assumption/premise in this interesting fabulism: the theistic creator, a.k.a *God* is posited as necessarily *more complex* than its *less complex* creations. This is contrasted with the *Darwinian* scheme of complexity arising from simplex preconditions.

This is a false dichotomy. It assumes divine complexity, when, in fact, there are major religious and philosophical trajectories that hold to the opposite - that *God* (and other terms for the Absolute Ground of Being) is in fact utterly simplex. For instance, in Neoplatonism the finest conception of *divinity* (misnomer, but bear with me) intelligible to us is the principle of Oneness. Can't get simpler than that! I daresay you might find Eastern speculations/reflections on this (Persiflage?) to yield great insight. You may even find that your argument is *clinched*, or pre-pinched! :)

I'll leave your questionable characterisation of Darwinism for more qualified posters to address.

Daniel, you corral the complexities of the human condition/endeavour into a debate between two monolithic adversaries, which *must* be *clinched*, like some piece of litigation. The stakes? Everything. A sort of science-fictional dualism. Must there be these *musts*?

Horses will still be scratching their behinds on trees...

I was happy but not surprised to hear Obama to include nonbelievers in his inauguration speech. I had heard him do it many times before during the campaign. It is routine for him. Sometimes hes says "agnostics and atheists" and other times, "non-believers" but he always says it. In his first book, he referred to his mother as a "lonely witness for secular humanism." He gets it - and he's a pragmatist.

I was on the Mall for the inauguration, watching on a jumbotron. When he said "non-believers," I cheered wildly, joined by my small group of more mellow fellow non-believers. We attracted some attention, as it wasn't one of the big applause lines in his speech. Still, in the spirit of inclusion which pervaded the event, people looked on us in a kindly way.

Susan,

"One historically ignorant reader questioned President Obama's statement..."

I hope your post carries an implied promise to be a bit more careful yourself. You have had some pretty good historical bloopers yourself. Remember when you said the Hiroshima A-Bomb killed more people than any conventional battle ever had?

Daniel12

Sometime I wonder what to make of you.

YOU SAID: "For most of human history humans have assumed that only something more complex than something complex can create something complex. Basic logic dictates such a thing. People have assumed a creator or intelligent designer is behind things"

No Daniel. This is not true. Man was believing in gods long before man knew anything about complexity verses non- complexity. God belief does not come about by a process of reasoning out this complexity thing that you keep going on about. It is about who is making the thunder the floods and disease. You have been listening too much to the arguments of theists and acting like we have to satisfy their wrong assumptions about science. This complexity thing is their hang-up, not ours. It comes from ignorance of the science.

YOU: "It has only been since Darwin that the counterintuitive position that complex things can come from simple things has arisen. And biology has had to keep providing proof for such a counterintuitive or if you prefer illogical view"

No. Not at all. Darwinism has nothing to do with complex things coming from simpler things. As Pam has noted, some creatures evolve to become less complex.

YOU: True atheists say such things as "if there is a creator who created the creator?"

We only say that to throw the logic of the theist back in their own face when they assert that everything must have a creator, and therefore God is true.

YOU: but positing a creator or intelligent designer still makes more sense than saying the complexity of life just rose from simple elements in self-organizing fashion. That virtually states that something can come from nothing"

No it doesn't because the intelligent designer would have to have a designer and on to infinity, by the same logic that says that life can not just arise on it's own. Positing a designer answers nothing. You have just moved your onus to another thing that had to have a beginning. Something had to have just always been, and it is far more likely that it is a place, or an energy, than a magic man in the sky.

YOU: "All to many people will not be swayed from the religious or intelligent design position--for humans are just...that way"

I am just that way and so is Pam and Farnaz, and Frederick, and millions and millions of others. We are living breathing proof that your statement above is flat wrong. It's just brainwashing kids that keeps it around. Not the lack of scientific evidence.

Jacoby wrote "the new president said that the time has come for Americans, as a people, to "put away childish things."

Does that mean that atheists will come to their senses and finally see the stupidity they spread?

Nope. They will live up to their name (to their IDIOCY) and NOT learn anything.

Is there intelligence in DNA? True to form and true to their "god of IGNORANCE", their answer is a resounding NO.

Onofrio,

"“I think the universe is a screen saver on God’s computer. I just hope he takes a long lunch..."

Is that all yours? Eminently quotable! :)"

I recollect thinking that up years ago, when screen savers were so new, when I saw a simulation of a galaxy making its stately progress across the screen of an idle computer.

Addendum to my previous post: latest news reports that Obama has retaken the oath of office. Case closed.

Susan Jacoby,

Thanks for commenting in your blog. I wish other moderators did that. Anyway, you wrote:
"As for the reader who is appalled at anyone having the temerity to make fun of a Supreme Court justice, some constitutional scholars are now saying that Obama needs to take the oath again, privately, because it was not administered in the form prescribed by the Constitution. Do you think that's unimportant?"

First, any political figure is a valid target for a bit of fun when the situation calls for it - and it did with our supreme supreme screwing it up. No biggie, in my book - everybody gets a case of nerves sometimes.

Next - so what if a bunch of constitutional scholars are splitting legal hairs and arguing about how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin? Obama became the president, according to the Constitution, at noon on 20 Jan, before he took the oath. And as far as I am concerned, and probably most Americans would agree, he took the oath.

Jacoby,

I don't believe in any of these gods, either. But that does not make me angry, like you are, that others do believe in them, and mention them -- mention them any way they like.

And, I find you angry at so many people, and so many things.

For you to continue displaying so much anger cannot be good for anybody, including you.

To Timmy and Pam from Daniel. Honestly, sometimes I wonder about you two...

For most of human history humans have assumed that only something more complex than something complex can create something complex. Basic logic dictates such a thing. People have assumed a creator or intelligent designer is behind things.

It has only been since Darwin that the counterintuitive position that complex things can come from simple things has arisen. And biology has had to keep providing proof for such a counterintuitive or if you prefer illogical view.
True atheists say such things as "if there is a creator who created the creator?"--and that is a valid line of arguing--but positing a creator or intelligent designer still makes more sense than saying the complexity of life just rose from simple elements in self-organizing fashion. That virtually states that something can come from nothing.

Now I am not throwing religion into anyone's faces--I am quite agnostic and sympathetic to the biological position. What I am trying to say is this: simply trying to prove the position that simple things lead to things more complex by providing examples from current flora and fauna is not enough. All to many people will not be swayed from the religious or intelligent design position--for humans are just...that way. Often even great proof to the contrary of a person's belief is not enough. People are pretty damn stubborn.

So what those sympathetic to the biological position must strive to do is to clinch the argument in their favor--and there is no more satisfying clinch of the argument than we humans not only taking our evolution into our own hands, but clearly creating a more complex, adaptive form of ourselves out of our quite simple minds of today. We must prove that the simple leads to the complex by we humans continually creating better forms of ourselves--thus proving it definitely is possible and we do not have to posit a creator or intelligent design behind existence. That is all I am trying to say....

ThomasBaum said, "Do you not think that there are some that will try to "create" [using] tru science the "perfect" human being?"

An interesting question. Let's turn it around a little. I'm assuming you believe in God and some form of the creation story. Is it possible for your God to create a perfect human being? Were Adam and Eve perfect?

This gets to the question of whether something perfect can create something imperfect.

Looking at the world as we know it, it seems more likely that small defects in copying millions of genes over millions of years, lead to the diversity of life that we see today, each in their own way, structured by natural selection to fill a niche in the environment.

But how do you explain that more than 95% of all the species that ever existed are now extinct? Using a theistic perspective, can we conclude that God was just experimenting? I can see him now. "Okay, I think I've got it this time. Oh crap, another reptile. Sheeze, these mammals are hard."

Under natural selection, losing most of the species occupying the world makes perfect sense especially in an environment where the "niches" keep changing.

Now, about the attempts at making the perfect human. We do this all the time. We try to make medicines that will perfectly vaccinate people from disease. We undertake surgery to correct imperfections like cleft pallets, deformed feet and a myriad number of other "imperfections" that crop up during the transcription of genes from a mother/father to a baby.

DCWCA,

"The real thought-provokers are eyes, ears, teeth, nasal passages, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, tendons...etc etc e. al. What would be the 'right conditions' for these few examples"?

The right condition is any condition that gives a competitive reproductive advantage to the possessor of any of these things (or their simpler precursors).

The only thing "random" about evolution is the variations themselves. There is nothing random about the rest.

Your question tells me that you don't know the first effing thing about evolution. You really should educate yourself if you want to participate meaningfully in discussions like this. The site that Freestinker recommended is good - there are also *many* excellent books. I'd be happy to recommend a few if you're interested.

PAMSM

A reposted reply.

You wrote, "We cannot direct our own evolution, nor should we desire it."

This is something that you think humans can't do and should not even attempt to do but do you truly think that there are not some very intelligent people out there that disagree with you?

There has been an ethical question made by some to the effect: Just because we can do something, should we do it?

What do you think of these two questions?

Do you not think that there are some that will try to "create" tru science the "perfect" human being?

Of course, who will be the one to decide what "perfect" is?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, ring a bell.

Knowledge can be used for good or evil and sometimes even using it for good can backfire.

Just some things to think about.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel12, I answered your post on the previous thread, but will repeat it here, in case you've moved on:

Daniel12,

You wrote:
"Logic dictates that something complex can come from only something more complex--thus supporting the religious or intelligent design view".

Sorry - *what*?? Logic dictates nothing of the sort. A whole human being comes from a single cell. You can take a pile of parts and build a bicycle, or with another pile of parts, you can build a computer...a car, an imposing edifice.

The sticking point has always been the *agency* involved. The parts of a computer, bicycle, car, or building don't become those things without the agency of humans to put them together. But these are in the category of *man-made* things. No human agency is required to make that fertilized egg into a human.

The latter is where religionists have always inserted God, because they can't understand the biological pathways. But biologists see no mystery or miracle in it - they know how it works.

So it will be when we completely understand life's origins. We're this close ||.

Life is entirely chemical, and we know that the "parts" - the chemical elements - were around way back when. The question has long been, how did they get organized to the point of reproducing themselves (and not perfectly, so that evolution had raw material). Now we're finding that many of the components are *self* organizing, under the right conditions - conditions that would have existed at the time.

We don't yet have every single step worked out, but when we do, a self-replicating cell will be reproducible.

DANIEL12: "And this apotheosis is none other than we simpleton humans of today taking our evolution into our own hands and creating a more complex form of ourselves".

You need to get over this idea - it isn't going to happen. Why do you think a "more complex" human would even be desirable? More complex in what way? More complexity is not always better - many animals have taken it in the other direction - evolving to become *less* complex, in order to exploit an available niche. In the process, they have become more successful than their more complex brethren.

We cannot direct our own evolution, nor should we desire it.

TWMATHEWS,

Don't misunderestimate Bush.

I think it was agapn9 who said, "A practical atheist is someone who proclaims that they believe in God but acts as if there isn't one."

I never heard of a practical atheist. By definition an atheist is one who disclaims a belief in god or gods.

As far as Susan's original post is concerned, I tend to agree. Obama was inclusive to all, including nonbelievers and he brought back reason and science into the forefront when it comes to examining the big questions on life.

Here's a question for the group that's following this column: Do you think Bush is smart enough to know when Obama was referencing him (Bush) and commenting on a new direction for his administration? Or do you think Bush needed to have Obama's words "splained" to him?

Moderate,

You, way back at post no.3:
"There is a lot of work ahead to march out of the shambles (friend Onofrio: Nice poem but, thankfully, I saw no stumbles yesterday though surely there will be some in the coming days.)"

Thanks for reading my stab at keynote. For this fledgling admin, stumbling’s destined, though so forgivable, as long as the course is true and sure. I feel hopeful for America.

My mind is still burning from your learned exchanges on big theme tracery - involving Persiflage, Timmy, T.Baum, and I think Daniel12 too - on t’other thread. Dazzled I am by multiverse, origins, quanta; I marvel at the immensities caught in a phrase. I have not the science to contribute, but just enough philosophy and time to stay tuned.

You:
“I think the universe is a screen saver on God’s computer. I just hope he takes a long lunch...”

Is that all yours? Eminently quotable! :)

AGAPN9,

YOU SAID: "Joe Stalin was an atheist - he and his buddies at the KGB murdered almost 60 million people. History doesn't paint atheists - when they get power - in a good light either"

Actually Stalin was a dictator, you know, like God is a dictator. Demanding unquestioning loyalty and worship and punishing brutally. No ideology works in the hands of a madman. But check out Denmark, and Scandinavia, where a slow process of people gradually letting go of religion by their own accord has somehow manifested itself into some of the most peaceful societies on the planet. The leaders of all of those countries are atheists.

Those are my words. Here is a nobel laureate saying it better.

"If this often-touted religious theory were correct-that a turning away from God is at the root of all societal ills-then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty, and disease and the most religious nations to be models of societal health. A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.
One must always be careful, of course, to distinguish between totalitarian nations where atheism is forced upon an unwilling population (such as in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former Soviet states) and open, democratic nations where atheism is freely chosen by a well-educated population (as in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan). The former nations' nonreligion, which can be described as 'coercive atheism,' is plagued by all that comes with totalitarianism: corruption, economic stagnation, censorship, depression, and the like. However, nearly every nation with high levels of 'organic atheism' is a veritable model of societal health".
Phil Zuckerman
Associate Professor of Sociology, Pitzer College
Author of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion

DCWCA,

YOU: Yet, mankind is too small to think that a power higher than us created our eyes, etc."

We're not too small. It's just that we don't have to speculate about the creation of the eye at all. We know how it was created. See Freestinker's post and link.

YOU: The real thought-provokers are eyes, ears, teeth, nasal passages, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, tendons...etc etc e. al. What would be the 'right conditions' for these few examples?"

Any conditions that would make the stepping stones to these organs useful to the survival of a living creature. In the case of eyes for example, it starts with light sensitive skin cells and it develops from there in stages by process of natural selection over millions and millions of years.

DCWCA,

Human organs were "created" but not by random chance! They were created by a process called evolution through natural selection, not by random chance. Evidently, you missed the point of the mold experiment in your grade school biology class! Or maybe you just ignored the teacher for the entire class?

If you're interested in learning something about evolution from actual evolutionary scientists, please see www.talkorigins.org. It's a great resource for those with questions about the subject.

CCNL:

Joe Stalin was an atheist - he and his buddies at the KGB murdered almost 60 million people. History doesn't paint atheists - when they get power - in a good light either.

DNZI:

It's good to realize that atheists like yourself don't know the difference between a practical atheist and someone like yourself who is just angry and doesn't know what they believe.

A practical atheist is someone who proclaims that they believe in God but acts as if they isn't one.

Now I could have been too harsh on Bush maybe its Cheney who was in control of everything. But sacrificing the Salmon in Oregon wasn't rational.
And pushing the war against the Iraqi's wasn't loving.

Are you getting my drift DNZI or is my drivel going over your head again?

DCWCA,

From your citation: Evolution happens by "non-random selection. To say that evolution happens “by chance” ignores half of the picture."

You citation explains the minor role of chance in evolution quite well (and refutes your false claim that evolution = chance). If you even read it, you evidently failed to understand what it means.

-------------------------------------------------

"Interestingly, the above seems to be the evolutionist view of religion also."

DCWCA,

I have heard of evolutionary biologists but what on earth is an evolutionist? Where did you hear that one?

And when did evolutionary science ever have anything at all to say about religion?

If you doubt evolution then how do you explain the fact that men have nipples?

twmatthews,

We've tried to deal with CCNL (also known as 'Bun-Bun') here for a long time. Most of us have concluded that his only purpose is to stir up dissension and get people pissed off. He is best ignored, else, as you saw, he comes spamming back with his (always identical) lists, over and over again. He is definitely a bigot, especially against Islam in any form.

>>Nah. That's the theist portrayal of evolution.

mmm...I dont think so. There is not much correlation with a 'radom chance' eye formation to a believers view that the eye, et. al. were created. Its actually the reverse that is true of theists (believers) In a sense, man has created a 'type' of eye too..in the camera. Yet, mankind is too small to think that a power higher than us created our eyes, etc.

>>Mold forms when the right conditions are met, not by random chance. Same goes for life.

Mold just covers the basics - simple science for school kids. The real thought-provokers are eyes, ears, teeth, nasal passages, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, tendons...etc etc e. al. What would be the 'right conditions' for these few examples?

To CCNL,

I stand corrected. You apparently have issues other than just abortion and sex. But I'm having a problem understanding your thrust. Are you stating that most religious leaders are greedy and corrupt? Are you stating that abortion is immoral at all stages including use of the morning after pill?

I'm also confused by your posting of statistics and am wondering whether you find fault with religious leaders or only certain religious leaders?

To Globalone,
I've always used these pages as a vehicle for exchanging ideas. Some I agree with and others I don't. You seem to be stating that Susan should not be articulating her ideas. If you don't agree with what she says, provide a counter argument and support it. But don't complain because she's commenting on an issue.

To

Susan Jacoby

One historically ignorant reader questioned President Obama's statement that his father would not have been served in many Washington restaurants 60 years ago. Until the 1950s, Washington was as segregated as any southern city. The D.C. schools desegregated only after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision was handed down. Many, many restaurants refused to serve blacks until President Lyndon Johnson pushed the Public Accomodations Act of 1964 through Congress. When I came to Washington in 1965 as a reporter for the post--there were two major press clubs: The National Press Club, which had almost no black members and was closed to women, and the integrated Capital Press Club.

As for the reader who is apalled at anyone having the temerity to make fun of a Supreme Court justice, some constitutional scholars are now saying that Obama needs to take the oath again, privately, because it was not administered in the form prescribed by the Constitution. Do you think that's unimportant? As I said, the least that can be expected of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is that he be able to remember one line of the Constitution without using a cheat sheet. If he can't, then he should have brought along notes.

>>DCWCA,

>>In what science book did you read that nonsense?

Certainly not totally discounted by those masterminds at Berkely (among others..just google it):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

..and it also truly depends on the evolutionist you are talking to.

Interestingly, the above seems to be the evolutionist view of religion also.

DCWCA,

"I had thought the pervasive thought on evolution (science, without a deity) is random chance?"

Nah. That's the theist portrayal of evolution.
Mold forms when the right conditions are met, not by random chance. Same goes for life.

ollyoxnfree, you are quite right. Lowry's unfortunate little rhyme is the sort of thing one can easily overlook in the right setting (although I think that is being a little too generous). But at a presidential inauguration, especially one that was supposed to bridge old racial differences, it was tone-deaf at the very least, but also a bit smug. And just because a conservative pundit doesn't like something, that doesn't mean it's good.

"I had thought the pervasive thought on evolution (science, without a deity) is random chance?"

DCWCA,

In what science book did you read that nonsense?

I don't understand how it's so easy to give Rev. Lowery's rhyme a pass and a laugh. Sure, its not the worst thing anyone has ever said in prayer, but can you imagine the outrage if it was Rev. Warren who said something similar like, "We ask you to help us work for that day when we'll see that white be alright, when the red man can get ahead, man; when yellow is known for more than the cello, when brown will mellow down, when black don't be whack." Rev. Warren would be run out of town on a rail, and rightly so. For me personally, Rev. Lowery's statements were tactless, out of touch, mildly offensive, and just plain unfortunate from an otherwise outstanding man.

Globalone,

YOU SAID: Also, I know it's easy to read and listen to those who share your views. The point of this forum is to hear ALTERNATIVE voices that might shed light on an individual's assumptions.

Agreed. So why are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your point has rocks in their head?

YOU THEN SAID: Bratty, self-absorbed, vindictive diatribes like the one Ms. Jacoby posted above serve no useful purpose in helping people understand opposite viewpoints.

Maybe for you. Many do not feel this way about Jacoby's articles. But now we know that you do, and we will all take it under consideration. You see this forum is a place for alternative voices. We just heard yours.

>>Current crises:

>>Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology

To err is human, to forgive, divine. One pointing finger means 3 pointing back at you. Many ways to look at. But in the overall scope of things, human shortcomings have nothing to do with God. We make our own choices. Have since Eden. If you really study it, what happened in the Garden of Eden has much to do with how human beings think and how we believe we can tell right from wrong... for millenia past...even until now.

So what is the actual point in the words (>>)that were stated above? Is the presenter pointing the finger at God, or at fallible man?

Again for "twmatthews" eyes only since he also failed to see the following information published a number of times on these pages:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking".

The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.

>>..believe an appeal to science brings verifiable results, while an appeal to a deity leaves things to random chance.

I had thought the pervasive thought on evolution (science, without a deity) is random chance?

More reading for "twmatthews":

The flaws and errors of the major religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.
www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

Analogous summaries on Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism published many times in these columns- available on request.

For "twmatthews" eyes only since he apparently missed these items even though they have been published many times:

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent the USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,402 combat and 822 non-combat) and 90,253 – 98,521I raqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror: continued as needed)

TWMatthews,

"And oh yes, on a rhetorical matter having nothing to do with religion: John G. Roberts, chief justice of the United States, screwed up the presidential oath of office, which reads: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." Roberts, that supposed legal genius, spoke the line as "execute the office of President of the United States faithfully." Obama clearly knew that Roberts' reading was wrong and hesitated, having to make an instant decision about whether to correct the chief justice publicly or repeat the botched line as Roberts had spoken it. Obama chose not to play the schoolmaster"

If you believe this to be "informative" or "articulate" - you have rocks in your head. The man, a Supreme Court justice, made a mistake. Dressing him down in public like this is unwarranted and juvenile. I suspect that if Ruth Ginsberg had made such an error, the tone of the article would have been different and the words "unfortunate" or "mistake" would have been included instead of what was written above.

Also, I know it's easy to read and listen to those who share your views. The point of this forum is to hear ALTERNATIVE voices that might shed light on an individual's assumptions.

Bratty, self-absorbed, vindictive diatribes like the one Ms. Jacoby posted above serve no useful purpose in helping people understand opposite viewpoints.

I generally agreed with the essay however Neil Armstrong muffed his line too. This was a ceremony not a performance and I, at least, can forgive the judge his case of nerves in his extraordinary first swearing in.

I generally agreed with the essay however Neil Armstrong muffed his line too. This was a ceremony not a performance and I, at least, can forgive the judge his case of nerves in his extraordinary first swearing in.

To globalone. I look forward to Susan's comments. Her writings are reasonable, articulate, supported and interesting. In fact, she's the first columnist I look for in these pages. If you have a problem, read someone else. Might I suggest Bill Kristol from the NY Times. His opinions lack reasoning and logic, are chock full of assumptions never articulated and he never apologizes for the many times he's turned out to be wrong. (Read his posts prior to the war in Iraq if you want to read some really good fiction. Or maybe even try reading his more recent opinions on Sarah (the superstar) Palin. Now here's some honest to goodness self deceit.)

To CCNL: You seem like a one topic person. Nothing else matters but sex and abortion. I've seen lots of your posts and almost all to my knowledge come back to abortion and your idea of morality. And yet at no time do I recall you talking about the immorality of starting an unnecessary war causing directly or indirectly, the deaths of over 250,000 people. Where do Bush's transgressions fit on your "moral-o-meter"?

Hyjanks,

YOU WROTE: "As an intelligent, articulate, highly-moral atheist I would have to lock my lack of religious beliefs in a closet before even considering a run as a representative of the people"

Never mind just hiding your atheism. You would have to actually establish a credible pattern of Christian God belief long before even starting your run for office. Claiming to believe in God is not enough in the US. One must be able to prove their God belief with a history of church going in order to get elected. If only it were true that an atheist would just have to hide their atheism or profess to believe in God. The religious right are too smart to be fooled by that. Your religious claims will be vetted. Count on it.

"I don't have the slightest objection to biblical allusions, any more than I do to allusions to Shakespeare."

Well said. When a religious expression is used as a tidbit of wisdom and not as dogma, it usually doesn't bother me.

I definitely cracked a smile when he tossed in "unbelievers". Although I would not have been at all offended if he had not said that line, I appreciate him giving a nod in our direction.

Well put. Thank you.

Does anyone else hear the voice of Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh when reading one of Ms. Jacoby's rants?

How exactly does our President plan to "unite" the country when public figures such as this continue to mock and bully any individuals who don't agree with her? I have never read anyone who shows as much disprespect for the Office of the President as she does. And now, she has thrown her tentacles of misery and anger towards a Supreme Court Justice. Good grief.

How old are you again?

I've read your numerous posts in the hopes of forming a more well-rounded thought in regards to the issues of the day. That ends today. Good luck and good night.

I'll leave you, Ms. Jacoby, with a word for the day. HUMILITY. If you're not familiar with the term, it means, "the quality or condition of being HUMBLE; MODEST opinion or estimate of ONE'S OWN IMPORTANCE, rank, etc."

where is that restaurant with cake, fish, fermented juice, olive, salt and bread? where is that restaurant with gifts granted later found in the pockets? where is that restaurant where people come, rest, dine and cheer up?

Agapn9:

Your post wins the award for today as the most pathetic drivel posted. Anyone claiming that George Bush is an atheist has some serious issues with critical thinking. George Bush believes in god - end of discussion about whether or not he is an atheist. Atheists have one common attribute and one only: we do not believe in the supernatural. There are no other common attributes.

Finally, your attempts to present religious belief as intellectually superior to atheists or others is seriously deluded.

where is that restaurant?

60 years ago, there was II World War. 60 years ago, there was Communism without Saints and Apostels.

today, the son of a man not served at a restaurant has been the chairman of the table. where is that restaurant?

What BO et al, the new leader of the Immoral Majority, failed to mention in the inaugural addresses and sermons:

Intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control in this country with on average one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Even condoms if they are even used are not full/fool proof.

Might a list of those having a STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

I have to admit, when I heard the president actually mention nonblievers in a speech, I got a bit of a thrill...which is rreally sad when I thought about it after. While simply being equated with believers is a great step, it is sad to think that such a thing is so unusual that I took such pleasure in it.

Shawn Cromett

All fine and dandy, your dissection of Obama's speech as it relates to non-believers. And perhaps some day the hatred toward atheists will subside and we won't be looked upon as hell-bound blasphemers with no redeeming social value.
The next step thereafter, however, will be the biggest test of all: Whether or not we can run for and obtain high public office in light of our atheism.
At this moment in time even the likes of Warren and Obama would have to admit the impossibility of this happening. Spooks, ghosts, gods, ethereal beings are very much an intrinsic part of "civilization"--so much so that anyone even mentioning his or her reluctance to worship a god--and, preferably, the "correct" god--would not even be considered a viable candidate for public office.
As an intelligent, articulate, highly-moral atheist I would have to lock my lack of religious beliefs in a closet before even considering a run as a representative of the people. And for a religious person not to agree with this statement would be folly of the grandest kind.
So, I and others have become the new ni**ers. Our only hope for acceptance among the believers in witches and goblins will probably come when the dissemination of information becomes universal; when an alternative to faith can be easily presented to those looking for something other than a tool to save them from the unknowable.
Until that time, I can only look at the present situation with either amusement or disgust.

To do the rational thing is to follow God's will. To do the charitable thing is to follow the law of charity written into the heart of every man by God. To be charitable is still to be rational. It is to promote the good of the other over the self. To be selfish is to promote the short term interest of the self over others and to promote the long term interest of no one.

George Bush promoted the selfish thing and then cloaked it in God talk. For all intents and purposes, except for his promotion of AIDS research and his restriction on stem cell research on the unborn, Bush was a practical atheist. You should have liked Bush Susan. The current President is more likely to be more rational and more charitable and atheism will no longer have a foil to point at.

I didn't see Obama's comments as being as secular as Ms. Jacoby did. I felt that God was very present in almost all of the proceedings. In fact, I am astounded at the reaction that I saw on this blog today. I guess people see and hear what they want to. Please check out this clip this illustrates my point perfectly. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216538&title=changefest-09-obamas-inaugural#Scene_1

Golly!

I too was struck by Obama's mention of non-believers. Like Richard Dawkins, I believe an appeal to science brings verifiable results, while an appeal to a deity leaves things to random chance. I have no problem with people holding personal religious beliefs, as long as they do not foist them upon others. Not only was Rick Warren's Christian invocation a self-center insult to the beliefs of others, but the constant reliance by network TV types on Black men of the cloth for commentary on Obama was also annoying and insulting to people of intelligence.

John Roberts, another Bush nominee, cleaved to the standard of competence set by the Administration throughout. His most important ceremonial occasion, and he muffed his lines. Amazing, but also somehow singularly appropriate, considering his origin.

Perhaps we can get a conversation on the content of Obama's speech instead of looking for reasons to be upset about religion? There is a lot of work ahead to march out of the shambles (friend Onofrio: Nice poem but, thankfully, I saw no stumbles yesterday though surely there will be some in the coming days.).

Sorry, that should be "Republic" in line 2 :( though I suppose the entity re-bubbles at the moment.

That glaring eagle, empires’ heirloom,
fans the Big Rebublic to a thunder:
penny’s dropped, a time has levered
centre-stage its nascent grace, not spun
(the hope), despite the caesaring squillions.
Exhaled relief sweeps hemispheres,
opacity of cameras not withstanding,
and though estimates of doom persist
in blasted concrete, creeping heat,
and all the riven womens’ broken broods,
something fey and ancient fresh
has flared, a given start for stumbling
out of the shambles.