Quote:
Originally posted by Jobar:
<strong>Originally posted by Amos:
Because we are divided in our own mind between our conscious and subconscious mind. Since we cannot make our own subconscius mind make the subject of our inquiry it is inspiration (illumination) that always tells of this unknown source of wisdom the Church calls God.
But we can do this, Amos. All our studies of the mind reveal it to be firmly grounded and inseparable from the physical universe around us. We are not apart from it. All the divisions we make are temporary and changeable. If you want to call this illumination God, fine; but it may just as well be called science, or consciousness, or philosophy. I personally think that as long as one realizes it is *not* separate from ones own self, it is illuminating whatever it's named.
|
</strong>
Agreed, twain and not twin and therefore
subconscious.Inspirations may follow rigorous thought but are never generated directly by it or they would not be called inspirations. However, I do agree, and see it possible, that you are able to tune into this third level of consciousness because both Isaac and Abraham reached heaven from a different "way" (I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob indicates this). Jesus was like Jacob and so there is more than one way to acquire the philosophic mind.
Quote:
<strong>
The paradox is very good prior to midlife. The paradox creates unrest in our own conscious mind and is what motivates us towards different goals. After midlife it is best if this paradox is resolved so old men won't have dreams and don't suffer during old age (it's cheaper for health care too).
But the paradox is always artificial. Some see this early in life, and, relaxing, play the game of life-and-death more freely and joyfully. Some never see it, and may suffer from clutching at life and fearing death right up to their graves. Yes, age and experience often brings wisdom, but this is certainly not guaranteed! Wisdom cannot be taught; it must be learned.
|
</strong>
It is much worse than that because I have seen research (sorry I don't gather evidence for my arguments) that extreme religious people who cling to their 'saved sinner' complex never experience the "golden years that bring wisdom"--which is equal to the period called menopause. In "Intimations of Immortality" this period is called the "years that bring the philosophic mind."
So it is true that wisdom must be learned but there is also a way to consolidate your own mind and this is what menopause is all about ("meno" means "I remain" as in "I become eternal" which is when the temporal left mind unites (at-ones) with the eternal right side of our mind. So religious fundamentalism is enormously counter productive and hinders "inner direction" already from an early age and absolutly makes self liberation (awakening) impossible at midlife.
Opposite this the Catholic Church tries to intensify this paradox and actually does this quite well from many different angles.
There is also such thing as infinite wisdom and that is what I am pointing at.
Quote:
<strong>
To resolve the paradox *is* the mystery of faith and only and all mystery religions are aware of this (each their own) "way" to self liberation. Since our faculty of reason must be annihilated it can never be a rational action or even pursued by our faculty of reason.
Yes to the first sentence, but NO to the second! Reason can also serve as a path to wisdom- in fact it is the path I have walked, and still walk. Our reason must overcome the mistake of putting itself above all; it's not "I think, therefore I am" but rather "I am, therefore I think." Once this is done, and our rational mind recognizes itself to be a part of nature and not a ruler over it, we no longer must grasp and strain for our ideas; instead they may come naturally, and unstrained.
|
</strong>
The best one I seen was "I think therefore I am confused."
Reason is the enemy of revelation, for sure, and it is nice if you can just go fishing on the other side and catch some revelations. Mystics and poets do this when they feel inspired.
As I see it, gnostics have taken the leap and reside in the right brain. They don't need to be inspired because they are God. Zamjatin makes this very clear in "WE" and Gogol is a real charmer in "Dead Souls." In "Julius Ceasar" the pivotal speach made by Mark Anthony occured just after Caesar (his ego) was slain (III,i,184-210).
Quote:
<strong>
There is nothing wrong with rational explanations except that they are never explained by the scientist in view of the entire perspective of the human condition and social environment beyond that. I am sure that we have enough science together to explain why things are the way they are but it would just be better if we could change the future and avoid problems before they arise. I believe that this is how and why civilizations rise and fall and is why the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe.
All right, but you can as meaningfully replace 'the mythology' with 'science', and 'the tribe' with 'humankind'!
</strong>
|
Not really because science will always have to extrapolate from omniscience and if you have a mind like yours you will no longer be any good at science. Science is cold and hard.
What scientists need is a good philosopher to interpret and summerize their findings.
There is no such thing as the humankind apart from our imagination. We are mankind and our humanity is just an atribute that belongs to "the being" called man.
Thanks for the response.
09-25-2002, 11:33 AM
