Elections Tuesday

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

To me, Faith and Reason do support each other. They are the “two wings of enlightenment” and BOTH are necessary.[/quote]

Indeed, Allan, the Ying and Yang, IMO

Beware of the Cartesian Cavalry shouting “empiricism! empiricism! I don’t have a soul and I don’t want one!”

My degree is in Philosophy of science so I am well versed in being hostile towards meaning;)

To me, the irony of science has always been the one miracle needed to make the whole thing work. Which is the big bang theory. What could me more miraculous than that. Just give science their one miracle and the rest has to be empirically tested to be “truth”

A point of singularity that exploded into an electron plasma, then cooled into chemical compounds so forth and so on, all the way up to biological species in complex social systems connected to high speed fiber optics discussing meaning or lack thereof with other beings around the globe. Where is this train going?

A given about the universe it that is seeks complexity through a series of thermodynamic rebalancings. This is a given, yet science can not reconcile with an obvious direction, because, direction would indicate purpose or meaning.

Yet science is going to tell you that the only things worth describing are those phenomena that can be repeatedly triggered. This is being these are the only phenomena that science can describe and that’s the name of the game as far as they are concerned

A French Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin came up with a theory around the turn of the century that I always liked.

to describe a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which the universe appears to be evolving. Teilhard’s term recurs in both intellectual works and popular culture, especially the cosmological theory proposed by the mathematical physicist Frank Tipler.

In this theory, the universe is constantly developing towards higher levels of material complexity and consciousness, a theory of evolution that Teilhard called the Law of Complexity/Consciousness. For Teilhard, the universe can only move in the direction of more complexity and consciousness if it is being drawn by a supreme point of complexity and consciousness. Thus Teilhard postulates the Omega Point as the supreme point of complexity and consciousness, which is not only as the term of the evolutionary process, but is also the actual cause for the universe to grow in complexity and consciousness. In other words, the Omega Point exists as supremely complex and conscious, independent of the evolving universe. I.e., the Omega Point is transcendent. In interpreting the universe this way, Teilhard kept the Omega Point within the orthodox views of the Christian God, who is transcendent (independent) of his creation.

Or what the Buddhists refer to as the realm of the densely packed, a transformational realm where the opposites are unified.

I agree, quantum theory showed what ancient mystics always knew, that the solidarity of the world is a mirage.

Max planck, the founder of quantum, spoke of the matrix of all mater which he saw as consciousness.

“All Matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.””

Atheism or scientistim is just is to rigid of a concept for my mind to stand behind. To me it’s illogical to close you mind to other concepts of space/time and purpose. It strangles creativity.

I don’t think nature is simply the random flight of atoms through electromagnetic fields. Nature is not the empty, despiritualized lumpen matter that we inherit from physics.

Or maybe it’s just what Paul Kurtz called the Transcendental Temptation.

Eh, who knows….

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

[briansd1]

Alright Arraya, I’m of the agreement that one should develop a philosophy of life. You sound more philosophical than religious.

I actually like Buddhism as it’s more of a philosophy than a religion. I think that I’m close to Bodhisattva level myself, haha…

But seriously, if you believe in the “the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind”, who would that mind be?

Are you satisfied not knowing, or do you think that such mind is God Jesus (or some other God)?

I find it interesting that in America it’s almost heretical to not believe in God. One must believe in God. Any God will do, but one must believe.

To a certain individual, it may strangle creativity to close his mind to God, but is that individual open-minded enough to accept that others don’t believe in God?

Arraya, are you simply open to the possibility of that “conscious and intelligent Mind”; or have you found him and periodically pray to him?

[briansd1]

Alright Arraya, I’m of the agreement that one should develop a philosophy of life. You sound more philosophical than religious.

I actually like Buddhism as it’s more of a philosophy than a religion. I think that I’m close to Bodhisattva level myself, haha…

But seriously, if you believe in the “the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind”, who would that mind be?

Are you satisfied not knowing, or do you think that such mind is God Jesus (or some other God)?

I find it interesting that in America it’s almost heretical to not believe in God. One must believe in God. Any God will do, but one must believe.

To a certain individual, it may strangle creativity to close his mind to God, but is that individual open-minded enough to accept that others don’t believe in God?

Arraya, are you simply open to the possibility of that “conscious and intelligent Mind”; or have you found him and periodically pray to him?

[briansd1]

Alright Arraya, I’m of the agreement that one should develop a philosophy of life. You sound more philosophical than religious.

I actually like Buddhism as it’s more of a philosophy than a religion. I think that I’m close to Bodhisattva level myself, haha…

But seriously, if you believe in the “the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind”, who would that mind be?

Are you satisfied not knowing, or do you think that such mind is God Jesus (or some other God)?

I find it interesting that in America it’s almost heretical to not believe in God. One must believe in God. Any God will do, but one must believe.

To a certain individual, it may strangle creativity to close his mind to God, but is that individual open-minded enough to accept that others don’t believe in God?

Arraya, are you simply open to the possibility of that “conscious and intelligent Mind”; or have you found him and periodically pray to him?

[briansd1]

Alright Arraya, I’m of the agreement that one should develop a philosophy of life. You sound more philosophical than religious.

I actually like Buddhism as it’s more of a philosophy than a religion. I think that I’m close to Bodhisattva level myself, haha…

But seriously, if you believe in the “the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind”, who would that mind be?

Are you satisfied not knowing, or do you think that such mind is God Jesus (or some other God)?

I find it interesting that in America it’s almost heretical to not believe in God. One must believe in God. Any God will do, but one must believe.

To a certain individual, it may strangle creativity to close his mind to God, but is that individual open-minded enough to accept that others don’t believe in God?

Arraya, are you simply open to the possibility of that “conscious and intelligent Mind”; or have you found him and periodically pray to him?

[briansd1]

Alright Arraya, I’m of the agreement that one should develop a philosophy of life. You sound more philosophical than religious.

I actually like Buddhism as it’s more of a philosophy than a religion. I think that I’m close to Bodhisattva level myself, haha…

But seriously, if you believe in the “the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind”, who would that mind be?

Are you satisfied not knowing, or do you think that such mind is God Jesus (or some other God)?

I find it interesting that in America it’s almost heretical to not believe in God. One must believe in God. Any God will do, but one must believe.

To a certain individual, it may strangle creativity to close his mind to God, but is that individual open-minded enough to accept that others don’t believe in God?

Arraya, are you simply open to the possibility of that “conscious and intelligent Mind”; or have you found him and periodically pray to him?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Excellent post. I’m sure I’m preaching to the converted here (probably a malapropism, given the content and tenor of this discussion), but have you read any Fritjof Capra (“Tao of Physics”)?

I just finished his “Web of Life” and its good. A little skittish in the beginning, but then it cohered and was quite cogent. If you read any of his earlier stuff, I think you’d enjoy it.

Also, check out “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters” (Zukav), if you have a chance. You might want to fire up some Humboldt Homegrown at the same time, but its another good book connecting quantum physics to “other things” (I don’t want to say “spiritual” for fear of offending the close-minded).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Excellent post. I’m sure I’m preaching to the converted here (probably a malapropism, given the content and tenor of this discussion), but have you read any Fritjof Capra (“Tao of Physics”)?

I just finished his “Web of Life” and its good. A little skittish in the beginning, but then it cohered and was quite cogent. If you read any of his earlier stuff, I think you’d enjoy it.

Also, check out “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters” (Zukav), if you have a chance. You might want to fire up some Humboldt Homegrown at the same time, but its another good book connecting quantum physics to “other things” (I don’t want to say “spiritual” for fear of offending the close-minded).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Excellent post. I’m sure I’m preaching to the converted here (probably a malapropism, given the content and tenor of this discussion), but have you read any Fritjof Capra (“Tao of Physics”)?

I just finished his “Web of Life” and its good. A little skittish in the beginning, but then it cohered and was quite cogent. If you read any of his earlier stuff, I think you’d enjoy it.

Also, check out “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters” (Zukav), if you have a chance. You might want to fire up some Humboldt Homegrown at the same time, but its another good book connecting quantum physics to “other things” (I don’t want to say “spiritual” for fear of offending the close-minded).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Excellent post. I’m sure I’m preaching to the converted here (probably a malapropism, given the content and tenor of this discussion), but have you read any Fritjof Capra (“Tao of Physics”)?

I just finished his “Web of Life” and its good. A little skittish in the beginning, but then it cohered and was quite cogent. If you read any of his earlier stuff, I think you’d enjoy it.

Also, check out “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters” (Zukav), if you have a chance. You might want to fire up some Humboldt Homegrown at the same time, but its another good book connecting quantum physics to “other things” (I don’t want to say “spiritual” for fear of offending the close-minded).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Excellent post. I’m sure I’m preaching to the converted here (probably a malapropism, given the content and tenor of this discussion), but have you read any Fritjof Capra (“Tao of Physics”)?

I just finished his “Web of Life” and its good. A little skittish in the beginning, but then it cohered and was quite cogent. If you read any of his earlier stuff, I think you’d enjoy it.

Also, check out “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters” (Zukav), if you have a chance. You might want to fire up some Humboldt Homegrown at the same time, but its another good book connecting quantum physics to “other things” (I don’t want to say “spiritual” for fear of offending the close-minded).

[afx114]

“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” – Richard Dawkins

[afx114]

“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” – Richard Dawkins

[afx114]

“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” – Richard Dawkins

[afx114]

“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” – Richard Dawkins

[Author]

Posts