Supernatural and fantasy thinking about religion. Is it good or evil?
We can scientifically explain the supernatural itch that some allow to control their thinking.
In children, this might be a good way of expanding their minds, but adults are asked to put away the things of children, which, to me, includes supernatural and fantasy thinking.
I use these to show substance dualism. I see this as a useful trait for us in nature but not for our spiritual and religious sides....
by Grea
brmck
"I use these to show substance dualism. I see this as a useful trait for us in nature but not for our spiritual and religious sides."
Just as mind and brain are not hierarchical. But instantaneously interdependent. There is nothing supernatural, as in separate from, or beyond nature.
All perception involves abstraction. Including the perception of a self. Also no aspect of our existence is independent from existence. Including experience.
That said, this business of "mind" being somehow as "material" as brain sounds fishy. It can just as easily be said that "brain" is as spiritual as "mind".
What follows from the above is that existence is experience. There are no actual boundaries.
•
greenpeaceRdale184 brmck•
"as mind and brain are not hierarchical. But instantaneously interdependent." You caught an interesting interface in your focus. Are you familiar with the term "emergence"? I am going to question your assertion of "not hierarchical," brm, because it´s unjustified, and not mutually exclusive with the similarly asserted "instantaneously interdependent." Instead, I´ll pose the question, "Are mind and brain hierarchical?" Case studies: Buddha was a coddled prince when he left his royal enclave and virtual bubble. His six years of seeking with gurus led him to perceive and organize his thoughts with some reference to the scheme of the Four Noble Truths, and the importance of meditation. That might then be distinguished from, say, Zen schools to the degree that they don´t teach the Four, it might be worth noting. In the Dharmapada, the account of the Buddha and the murderer Angulimala is told. The Buddha walks through the area of the notorious bandit-murderer, who sees the monk and stalks him as another victim. Trying to approach close to the monk-Buddha, the killer A. suddenly found himself unable to close the distance. So he shouted....Long and short, the Buddha says, "I have stopped my urge to violence inside, while you have not." And Angulimala was psychologically struck and converted. The Buddha, who could have been killed like any other flesh and blood human being in Indian history and world history before his awakening, demonstrated an alternative outcome based on psychosocial and spiritual mind-led development. That killer also became a Buddhist monk who had continuing experiences that revealed his karmic moral debt being resolved. Simple killers will not infrequently meet their end as they have lived, as Jesus related, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Mars was the Roman god of war, and the Hindu pantheon conceives of a "destroyer," Vishnu? Angulimala is not told as worshiping any god, as far as that goes. His mind was leading his brain according to some alignment, however, that was toxic to others, while the Buddha´s demonstrated a quality that first disarmed the killer´s capability to act, then identified his condition in a way that stimulated him to pursue reorientation.
The Buddha´s brain-mind context is similar to the dynamics when Jesus healed, and taught the need to "clean the cup within" and experience "the Kingdom of Heaven." Understanding the self-reflecting and self-awareness of these two leading spiritual teacher figures, we can see that the mind is, in the physical material world, a psychosocial and cultural interface. The mind is able to cultivate the brain itself to operate in what at least Richard Griffiths calls spiritually intelligent "synchronous processing." Griffiths has ascertained that from work like A Newberg´s brainscan studies. It´s also a modern form of shamanic intelligence. Anthony of the Desert has a rich life story and pre-modern spiritual odyssey that appears to be phrased in mythological terms, but besides his "demons" of boredom and the like, one incident at least that stands out after his cathartic theosis is his dream about Paul of Thebes, another Christian ascetic. Modern NDE´s also reveal information gained by people while dead in hospitals, where higher degrees of reliability can be established. Thus, I would argue that evidence like that suggests that sequentially, the brain is first necessary for the mind as we grow according to Piaget et al´s cognitive and affective developmental stages, and then in psychosocial and cultural development, the mind can guide the brain to higher developmental levels in a way that can protect that physical brain and even gain inforrmation in, or in connection with, an apparently immaterial plane. That can occur in balance with degrees of logical and emotional intelligence in appropriate types of effort and time, and in relation to nature (shamanism at least), higher laws (karma) or the source of that law (dharmakaya), or entities (angels, power animals, the Great Spirit/Sacredness, God thru Jesus, etc, at least) can recognize Transpersonal relationships.
***
brmckay greenpeaceRdale1844coop •
"Emergent effect" and "causal potential" are absolutely simultaneous in the context of Reality. (the mind's sense of time and sequence included, as with the brains chemistry and legacy of quantum whatever)
•
greenpeaceRdale1844coop brmckay •
Simultaneity is a reasonable hypothesis, but I´d need to ponder it. brm, why are you in such a rush to make assertions as if there is no need to make propositions to be weighed empirically? My comment was a reflection on mind-brain hierarchy. By creating cases, we can begin to apply empirical standards that fortify the urge to perceive the truth. No "know-it-all" is dispensing truth by command to anyone´s satisfaction except conformists.
•
brmckay greenpeaceRdale1844coop
An excess of "a priori" on my part I suppose.
But what was your take on the question of "supernatural"?
greenpeaceRdale1844coop brmckay •
Having fortified myself with Psychosomatic Medicine and love´s dimensions in healing, transpersonal relationship, Scientism´s fallacy, and epistemology type stuff, and even Bohm´s implicate order, already when the "Religion" anti-theist blog was still up I was taken by the implications of Christian dreams and visions, like Anthony of the Desert´s and St. Mercurious´ multivalents (his dad´s about him, too). Galen´s dad had a pagan vision about him. By modern times now, videos and programming help organize testimonies that capture fascinating Transpersonal dynamics. Marlene Klepees had cerebral palsy (childhood brain damage) and a suffering youth as she became Christian. Her suffering continued until she arrived at the Mayo Clinic, where her spastic pain was observed. The 20 or so yr old said to God, "(Make it) stop!" and she had a vision that she would be healed. The next day, she prayed, got a yellow pages book (those were the days), and had an intuition about a listing. She called, the pastor (of a church with no tradition of healing) sounded right to her, came to get her, and took her for a group prayer session, where she was healed. The Mayo Clinic caught the before and after. She´s now a preacher. Simply marvelous. A potential non-material, spiritual-religious Transpersonal cause-effect was triggered in a sequence in a modern Christian context. It´s not just psychosomatic, but in Christian Transpersonal relationship- "God, stop (this)!" Quantum mechanics might potentiate the bio-neurophysiological adjustments, but the Transpersonal focus was God the Creator, immanent, omnipresent, and transcendent. Supernatural, God as transcendent, prayer and meditation, shamanically and the like in the sacred, as non-objectified relation with an immaterial aspect of the Universe, perceived by and related to by us in our emergence. "Natural" can be extended to include it, but then it´s a Big Friendly Fluffy Cat-Dog-Grandpa of a Giganto-Cosmo-Quanto-Creator-Sustainer natural with God as a transcendent Other, I like "supernatural." And with Jesus, Buddha, and Mary B Eddy.
•
brmckay greenpeaceRdale1844coop •
See, not so hard. And the "know-it-all" doesn't need to quibble about the dependence on "materiality" in counterpoint to "transcendence". (maybe just point it out)
Though he might want to "know" why it is necessary that God as "Other" is the one required to transcend, just so we can use the past tense for "Creation".
•
greenpeaceRdale1844coop brmckay •
"Not so hard"? C´mon, that fermentation´s not MY difficulty your commenting on. I engaged with you starting with a reply on your subtopic comment about the brain-mind interface and whether or not it´s hierarchical. My case studies suggest it is, in fact, judging from two angles, the spiritual-Transpersonal developmental and the more primary Piagetian developmental. You still haven´t addressed that, though you are demonstrating that even "a priori" assertions are subject to the basic rules of knowledge in Epistemological Philosophy, "a justified, true (i.e. verifiable) belief" and as per Plantinga, "warranted." That is because "know-it-all" isn´t true unless it involves the very necessary steps of rigorous knowledge that has allowed Christian-derived modern forms of Philosophy to take modernity to unprecedented levels.
As for "quibbling," that requires something trivial. This stuff is filled with fascinating and uncommon details in my book. As such, "dependence on materiality" plays out how? And "transcendence"? The term "counterpoint" in´t so immediately familiar to me, although its unconflicted semantics in music seem most true off-hand, although conflicted perception is common. That said, your point of material reality as foundational certainly corresponds to my experience valuing the study of, say, Biology and the sciences highly, Psychology and the widely disparaged emotions and their psychosocial therapeutic dynamics significantly, and the material value of societal and then multicultural dynamics, the educational Universities and their historical and sociological basis in monastic schools and back to Jesus and the Apostles. In observing the role of Church pronouncements in the Condemnations of 1277 that prohibited taking ancient Greek limiting assumptions, and asserted the Christian view of an omnipotent and lawful God, we see that Transpersonal Psychology, as part of psychosocial and cultural emergent phenomena, transforms your assertion of "dependence on" to "emerges from foundations of." That is, "material reality" in modern Western culture depends on a Transpersonal relationship with the transcendent. Al Gore´s courage around environmentalism reflects his potential non-Biologist professional vulnerability
as a politician that limited his already determined and extensive efforts. Medical doctors have higher theist levels as a demographic among scientists, but not all. The study of History and developmental Psychology thus offers insight into the synergy that can occur in a material-transcendent interactive dynamic.
"Why is it necessary that God as "Other" is the one required to transcend, just so we can use the past tense for "Creation"? "Necessity" relates to observed function, operation, and experience. Shamans, in the Paleolithic and later hunter-gatherer tribal and like contexts already were, and have been able to achieve healing and other forms of psychosocial stimulation, and working with power animals and what Michael Harner calls "non-ordinary" interconnected states of reality and/or consciousness. Various forms of modern mental illness, like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder appear to be biochemical and genetic in light of traditional shamanism and likely modern forms of spirituality, Therapeutic Psychology, Psychosomatic Medicine, and so on. Analogously, sickle-cell anemia became an established genetic condition because of its heterozygous advantages against malaria.
The Buddha´s experience provides rich insights into the process in the Neolithic larger urban settlement society, confirmed by its considerably successful spread and modern Psychology. The Buddha identified the problem in the Second of Four Noble Truths, you may have heard, that the cause of (excess) suffering is (addictive) attachment to desire. Jesus, for his part normally distorted by doctrines, clearly identified the "wickedness within." The Buddha i.d.´d further " a "sphere of the uncreated" and a "law guiding all beings to enlightenment, that is a Spirit, as perception and the sense-perceived world are both spiritual." Buddha observed, reflected, and asserted that because the uncreated can be perceived, liberation from the conditioned can be achieved. The Buddha who had been raised a material-needs-sated prince, in his enormous accomplishment in establishing that tradition, assumed a key role in a Transpersonal spiritual-religious phenomenal chain.
Meanwhile, the Buddha had a talented cousin Devadatta who became twisted as an envious and treacherous attempted usurper of the Buddha.
Jesus´ role in establishing the basis of what has become a modern University-based, globalized UN community emerged from the theist Jewish tradition and the Abraham-Moses prophetic line of 50+ representatives.
" just so we can use the past tense for "Creation". Your notion of causality is hardly adequate, first of all. Again, you asserted an unexamined answer to your question. That´s not "a priori," that´s a preconceived notion, BTW. "Creation" as a "past tense" of the putative Big Bang is clarified by the issue of eternity and substrate foundation. Is the Universe eternal? Apparently not. Why is there something instead of nothing? Something or some entity caused this Universe, creating it, as Aristotle perceived in impersonalized philosophical terms as the First Cause and Unmoved Mover, on top of ancient Greek religion like the Orphic Mysteries and their mythic notions of Chaos, from which emerged Gaia, Eros, etc.
Thomas of Aquinas elaborated Aristotle´s induction and deduction to such formulations as the Uncaused Cause, and valuing Christ and the parental, personal, accessible, benevolent, and responsive God. Thus, your view of an indifferent, "past-tense" Creator harkens back to Thomas Jefferson, who was famously a rationalist Deist Christian fairly ignorant of religious experience. Meanwhile, he ignored even the not-so-obscure examples of Francis of Assisi who did not rationally decide to "hit the streets." He had visionary experiences. Franciscans in Gr Britain became early scientists, significantly. Martin Luther, too, hardly had a smooth formative experience, and even had a lightning bolt strike near him at a crucial moment. George Fox in the UK, unlike the organized Franciscans or Anglicans in the Universities, had visions in synch with his reflections as the son of a wool merchant. Thus, all by Hugo Grotius´ time, Grotius envisioned Religious Tolerance by harping on not just God´s existence, but his Providence. That is Jesus´ teaching of praying to God and asking for help and guidance. I started with H Smith´s portrayal of the Chinese Tao, myself. "A creative continuum that is always accessible."
brmckay greenpeaceRdale1844
"Is the Universe eternal? Apparently not. "
Why? Whose image is it [sorry, was it] made in then?
•
greenpeaceRdale1844coop brmckay •
"Why?" is the Universe itself not eternal? Is your knowledge of Physics not even up to the basic first answer component? The Universe, meaning the scientifically observable Universe described by Scientific Philosophy, has a Cosmology based on the observed red (and blue) shifts of galaxies that have led to the rigors of the Big Bang hypothesis. Thus, any "eternal" reality and entity is of a different order of existence, aka ontology. As for "images," you seem to be confusing the Biblical OT assertion that "God made humankind in his image" with, "And God said let there be light..., etc." The study of "emergence" suggests that as a relevant process to the extent that we can reflect upon the transcendent Creator/Source Entity and its relation to us as part of material reality, and Jesus and his diverse layers of context as the indisputable key foundation of globalized University-based, corporate business-corrupted Western Civilization, and the US-UN community.
•
Bishadi greenpeaceRdale1844coop •
The universe has been here before and after you. Eternal to your life.
The 'big bang hypothesis' is just an opinion. No god magically gave the scientist the theorem or idea. Thus, the eternal universe is still eternal to your life. before during and after!
The bible is man made, so any assertion is just like the big bang; man made opinion.
What transcends is time. But the universe was here before you, and will be after you.
•
greenpeaceRdale1844coop Bishadi
Ah, OK, brm. You are expressing your views. How they match with empirical and other shared perceptions of reality is another thing. As I said before, your assertions aren´t truths. They are assertions. You used the term "a priori," which is a philosophical term, but with no apparent interest in my observations, critiques, and refutations of your assertions. Apparently, your "spiritual path" is rather self-indulgent.
"The universe... is eternal to your life." So, now the ego is your standard? Yeah, no. I feel a little disappointed at your egotistical demonstration, but happy that you have revealed the nature of your premises more clearly. Myself, I am the son of a man and a woman, and so on back through evolutionary time, and scientific philosophers have provided as excellent a basis for bicycle technology, the internet, and wind turbine co-operatives as they have for religious philosophizing, and vice versa. The Dinosaurs died out 65 mya, life started on Earth around 3.8 bya, and astrophysicists have fed theoretical physicists quite a bundle of info to calculate the Universe´s origins around 13.8 bya. Cause and effect, and math.
"The 'big bang hypothesis' is just an opinion" Uh, see above.
"No god magically gave the scientist the theorem or idea. Thus, the eternal universe is still eternal to your life. before during and after!" OK, so. Actually, scientists have achieved much, with pros and cons. One con is that the spiritual origins surrounding modern scientific philosophy have been widely ignored, but I have read work based on that of P Duhem and other scholars that identifies the role of nothing less than the Condemnations of 1277. Rob´t Grosseteste would have been one of the Oxford Franciscan School that identified flaws in Aristotle and benefited. Aristotle´s limiting assumptions included "metabasis" that were then condemned as the Christian view of God the Creator and Providential Source attributed omnipotence to Him in creating physical behavior. So, your so-called "a priori," but actual mistaking of pontificating for knowledge, betrays you once again. I´ve been learning a lot as I go from the internet. You, aren´t. God as transcendent Creator etc matters, and Jesus matters. Your wild-eyed mysticism is undisciplined, merely self-indulgent and self-gratifying, and leaves you ungrounded.
"The bible is man made, so any assertion is just like the big bang; man made opinion." And again, you and your fallacies. The Bible is written by men, with ample historical elements, and the conveyance of the Hebrew/Jewish religious prophetic tradition with its coherent, consistent, individualized, and persistent elements through 50 plus representatives to Jesus. Jesus, among other aspects, fulfilled Abraham´s covenant and Moses´ Commandments with such elements as the Lord´s Prayer, and created an unprecedented legacy. An exemplary sequence might include Moses´ dealing with the Pharaoh in Egypt until he brought God´s Ten Commandments down, including "Thou shalt not kill," while things developed until Jesus and his teachings to "Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven," "Clean the cup within," and learn to "Love thy neighbor as thyself, as Jesus loved others, until thy enemy, and God first of all." Whether recognizing the US´s problems or cultural strengths, and the role of high integrity Christians dissenting from hypocritical authorities, and FDR and Eleanors´ UN vision, all told your view is sadly as misinformed as it is naive.
"What transcends is time. But the universe was here before you, and will be after you." Time? Einstein didn´t become a household name because "time" is special, but because the velocity of light in a vacuum is. It is a constant that nothing moving supersedes, and it is the number that when squared fulfills simpler formulas like F=m a (m/sec2) as E=Mc2. Time, no less, is an abstraction constructed out of motion. The Universe and me? The Universe´s Creator and Source preceded it and made coherent modernity possible thanks primarily to Jesus Christ, his legacy, and diversity. It is thus that we can recognize the evil of hypocrisy and misguided denialism and the blessing of high integrity acts, including healing, activism, and disciplined knowledge. What good is the Universe being here after you if it escapes you even now?
•
Bishadi greenpeaceRdale1844coop •
I said, "The universe has been here before and after you"
As I said before, your assertions aren´t truths
Stop there! You have a whole bunch of nonsense running thru your head. What i wrote is true no matter the angle.
The universe is eternal to your life, as it is the alpha and omega to everything that is you. Again, nothing to debate, no matter the angle. You can, nor will ever leave the universe.
the 'a priori' is to be honest before belief.
greenpeaceRdale1844coop Bishadi •
Bishadi, look at that. You inserted yourself so smoothly, and the hour was so late, I mixed you up with the other guy. No matter, small adjustments.
"What i wrote is true no matter the angle." Of course, you distort and confuse things as usual. My statement applies to you, and in this case, you distort your own assertion which goes "The universe has been here before and after you. Eternal to your life." Your loose use of terms has license in poetry, not Philosophy as here. Before Scientific Philosophy´s scientific philosophers had worked out the Big Bang, Aristotle´s metaphysics as of ca 340 BC/E soundly treated cause and effect as far as he went, building off Greek religious foundations of Chaos and emergent entities. and identified a First Cause and Unmoved Mover. Biblical scholarship of Genesis´ Creation has two versions and two sources, Yahwist and Priestly. Earlier thought considered the 9th century Solomon-era a possibility for the Yahwist, while recent thought locates it close to or in the Babylonian exile starting around 600 BC. Their decision of Creatipn does not confuse the nature of "eternity," and demonstrates a conceptual clarity that has been amply confirmed by Jesus Christ´s legacy in relation to God. Yours is an egocentric formulation that leaves you unclear about the significance of Jesus and his emergence in the Jewish tradition for God´s love, and his legacy.
•
brmckay greenpeaceRdale1844coop •
"The study of "emergence" suggests that [let there be light...etc.] as a relevant process to the extent that we can reflect upon the transcendent Creator/Source Entity..."
The Whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Who kicked who out of the garden? And is it really a thing? Does it actually hold water? Or's it just a bad dream?
•
greenpeaceRdale1844coop brmckay •
"The Whole being greater than the sum of its parts." And in fact, a new level of reality: Physics into Chemistry into Biology into Human Anthropology, for example. Jesus´ legacy has given us the intellectual resources to analyze and understand, if we are disciplined. As such, the emergence of human symbolic psychosocial culture and behavior led humankind in Neolithic agricultural settlements. From Sargon of Mesopotamia´s conquests and being "punished by the god Marduk for his evil deeds with famine" to Alexander the Great rising to power after his mother´s assassinating his father and slaughtering enemies, and the Romans as well as they did at Corinth in 145 BC/E, humans have abused power cruelly. Socrates was executed. Moses followed Abraham´s covenant with God´s Ten Commandments, but Jesus has brought personal accountability to God to a new potential. If you don´t understand the value of the Freedom of Religion, and the meaning of emergent and resurgent high integrity Christians like Francis of Assisi, George Fox, Lucretia Mott, John Muir, Christian-Hindu Gandhi, FDR, MLK, and Al Gore, then no wonder you treat it all like a dream. You are alienated and in the dark.
•
brmckay greenpeaceRdale1844coop •
"/"The Whole being greater than the sum of its parts."/ And in fact, a new level of reality: Physics into Chemistry into Biology into Human Anthropology, for example. Jesus´ legacy has given us the intellectual resources to analyze and understand, if we are disciplined. "
(dare I say it?)
In the a priori context of Reality as Entire, "levels" constitute "parts". And, "dreams" indicate a dreamer.
The quality of the "dreamer" isn't actually measurable in terms of the dream. But that doesn't make the dream journey less than Real either.
For me, the seamlessness of Reality means that your "transcendent God" is just bollox.
But now I have to invoke the poet James Richardson when he said, "I could explain but then you would understand my explanation, not what I said."
•
greenpeaceRdale1844coop brmckay •
Your "seamless" Reality leaves you as a mixed metaphorical goldfish barking about seamless pantheism and poets on the internet, and calling names like "bollocks" the transcendence of your pet-fish owner, feeder, and water-changer, pump-cleaner, all a metaphor of and analogy to your "Western" all-surrounding psychosocial and cultural context founded on the approach and understanding of a parental loving immaterial God through Jesus, the Creator-Source-Dreamer. It underlies anyone that now gains full awareness of their being an "individual dreamer" dreaming like the childhood boat-rowing ditty and Aerosmith´s song crooned. One manner of explaining that is because you perceive your goldfish self seamlessly with the water, just like brainless atoms and low cognitive mice like even strategy-capable lions and dolphins, all of whom are "parts" of a whole.
Unlike goldfish, and the rest, however, cognitive humans can understand levels and distinctions adequately, descending from Paleolithic tool use and socio-emotional cognition and communication. That is what the Greek-derived, modernized Christian-based Scientific Revolution in a socio-religious complex made possible. Do I not understand what you say through another, "invoking" a poet? Modern poets for their PART such as it is and as far as it goes, in the end, are ARTISTS in the globalized Christian-derived WTO-UN community, their fishbowl complex. Modern Psychologists, for their own PART and in their distinct function and role, have identified the denialism, projection, and other defense mechanisms that try to compensate for unacknowledged and repressed pain. In full, it is the Christian University-based foundation that supplies such levels of wisdom and knowledge in the diversely special multi- and interdisciplinarity, and finally through the Reformation and Enlightenment-based Freedom of Religion and scholarship of Comparative Religion. Subsequent and consequent virtually free access to alternative spiritual masters and their supplementary insights, as I "summon" Buddha´s story of the bragging jumping monkey. "See those five mountains way over there?" said the monkey to the Buddha. "I can jump all the way there, pee on them, and back before you can say, "Seamless Jumping Jehosaphat!" And he did, boing, boing, and was back again with the Buddha. "See?" said the huffing monkey. "Pee?" said the Buddha, opening his fingers, each with a yellow stain at the tip-peak. "We three see," say I, "seamlessly," thanking the transcendent parental God through Jesus in the clarity of subordinate-relation, not a harsh inferiority, and gratitude through Nature and sociohistorical people and processes, along with gratitude to the non-theist dharmakaya-spiritual Buddha, and so on, the "giant´s shoulders" Newton acknowledged, those he didn´t, and those he could hardly have even known about even if he had gotten acquainted with the futuristic atavism of George Fox´s Quaker-Friend Christianity or Q-F son poet Walt Whitman. "You, however, think like a juvenile goldfish, that your veins are like seamless zippers, but they aren´t, like the words you speak and hear, but that someone else has said, and even what they actually said and meant. Veins have differentiated valves, and so, you don´t (see like we three, seamlessly in differentiation, interrelation, and (empowering) hierarchy)."
And, upon further reflection, it is worth noting that Jesus, and the Jewish prophets even went so far as to refer to, "Those who have eyes, but cannot see, and ears, but cannot hear" as in Psalm 135 and Mark 4 and 8. Want a cane and a funnel for that, or are you a guide-dog guy, or perhaps a dream-catcher?
•
brmckay@ greenpeaceRdale1844co
And yet, the Guru's role, though loved, is to help the disciple find their own Way. Not be made a god. Same with avatars if the case may be.
greenpeaceRdale1844coop @brmckay
Yet, there is no God but God, and Gurus and avatars are, in globalized WTO-UN fact, Jesus the Savior´s prophets, as I might refer to Gandhi, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Al Gore, while thanking Mohammad´s and Muslims´ integrity in Jesus for that turn of speech. So, find your own way, but the "bollocks" are yours, not the transcendence of God. The path to making a pie doesn´t mean that you can throw a pie in the sky without it falling back in your own face.
•
brmck @greenpeaceRdale1844c
"The path to making a pie doesn´t mean that you can throw a pie in the sky without it falling back in your own face."
If it is to not fall back, it is the pie that transcends not the sky ॐ
Any error that keeps me away from God is on "me". Or did you think I didn't know that?
•
Avatar
greenpeaceRdale1844@brmc•
A pie is not for throwing at the sky under normal circumstances, but for eating. Neither pies nor the sky "transcend" in relevant metaphors. Metaphors symbollically render intangibles, whether psychological conditions, emotional states, or the transcendent, more concrete and comprehensible. The symbolic expressions I drew on are drawn from tradition, and intuitively, anthropologically, psychologically, and folklorically reflect projected psychodynamics, especially unacknowledged emotions, as in "a pie in the face," and your addressing God´s transcendence as "bollocks." It is enjoying someone´s, or our own, pie, best of all with local, organic, and Fair Trade ingredients, and our mindfullness and gratitude, that approaches fulfillment of the integrity Jesus taught for God´s love, informed by Buddha, Socrates, Aquinas, DesCartes, and so on. In Zen Buddhism they teach, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. Afterwards, the same," whether from Myoan Eisai ca 1180 or not. In Jesus, with the Kingdom of Heaven, the Lord´s Prayer, Anthony of the Desert ca 270, Tibetan and comprehensive Buddhism, and so on, we can transcend Buddhist non-theist enlightenment by a few notches and degrees into an advanced modern form of "theosis" (or "divinization").
Yet, that´s just a road map, and as Korzybski has helped be said, the map is not the territory. Thus, in fact, the error that keeps you "away from" God, is not just your error, but one that has been, and still is, shared by many, and some with far less benevolent orientations and influence. Moreover, "error" is only really applicable in an assertion of philosophical truth, such as the question of the transcendent nature of God in relation to us in Nature and the Created Universe according to Jesus´ legacy in University-based WTO-US-EU globalized pluralistic UN society that affirms Human Rights and the Freedom of Religion. Being "separated from a caring/cared for relationship with a transcendent God whiling calling transcendence 'bollocks'" is a psychosocial, subcultural, and Transpersonal psychological "condition," not itself an "error." It doesn´t appear that you know that. Fundamentalists and their profiteering overlords threaten the sustainability of the world around you. A transcendent God through Jesus empowered George Fox to establish Quaker-Friendism, which empowered Anti-slavery dissidents and the like through scholars of Comparative Religion like Schopenhauer and Max Mueller, anthropologists like Lewis Morgan, and the Swedenborgian lead organizer of the 1890s World Parliament of Religion, Helen Blavatsky´s Theosophy, the 1860s Hindu renaissance that led to the interfaith Christian-Hindu Gandhi, the 1915 US Fellowship of Reconciliation, Alan Watt´s 1930s book on Zen, and the 1960s founding of the interfaith Unitarian Universalist Religious Assoc, and so on. If I said, "I think you know all that," I´d be lying, so I won´t. My God and Sweet Jesus! Did you think I would ever say anything like that? Or maybe you think I think the Pope doesn´t p**p in the woods?
brmckay@ greenpeaceRdale1844
"Being "separated from a caring/cared for relationship with a transcendent God whiling calling transcendence 'bollocks'" is a psychosocial, subcultural, and Transpersonal psychological "condition," not itself an "error.""
"tran·scend·ence
/ˌtran(t)ˈsendəns/
noun
existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level.
"the possibility of spiritual transcendence in the modern world""
It is bollox to insist that God transcends the "normal or physical level".
That being our process, and the reason for Jesus. (as well as all the teachers, Guru, saints, savants and avatars).
As for Helen Blavatsky, I had more affinity with Alexandra David-Néel, though Annie Besant turned me on to Sanskrit and Devanāgarī. And Scot and Helen Neering meant a lot too. Enough that it was amusing to learn Helen had been Krishnamurti's main squeeze in the very early years. (they met on a cruise in the company of Joseph Campbell if I recall correctly).
And now I just fear providing you with so much text to contradict, and misconstrue.
•
greenpeaceRdale1844coop @brmck •
Your expressing "fear" and thinking about "text" that can be "contradicted and misconstrued" are more of the first of the two parts of your condition as separate from God, whose apparent Son Jesus taught, "Take the plank out of your own eye..." and "the truth shall set you free." You "fear" in good measure because you don´t know "care" or "love" adequately, even as you pantheistically, and codependently mistake God as "existence." Psychology teaches that our parents each show us forms of love, abuse, or neglect. That certainly is a key foundation, and affects someone´s ability to recognize the significance of Louise Hay´s advocacy of the spiritual and therapeutic affirmation, "I love myself." A basic knowledge of Jesus brings to mind his powerful second commandment, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." That as the first angle, and then the second, you and your continuing philosophical error, that "It is bollox to insist that God transcends the "normal or physical level." You state, "That being our process, and the reason for Jesus." Perhaps you are referring to "God," but then you gossip. Are you aware of what you tried to say?
Understanding the transcendent can be done systematically, but calling it "bollox" (sic) and "our process" sounds like your pantheism and its fallacious overidentification. But, that´s why ecosocial sustainability makes an excellent basis for grounding Christ´s legacy and spurring awakening as it did in context for Gandhi. Without understanding the transcendent, even as Buddha did, you are trapped. But, that is your condition and that is where you misappropriate philosophy, contaminate it without discernment, and substitute the conceited anger of the phrase "a transcendent God is bollocks." Besant, for her part, seems to have experienced, but failed to grasp, the dissociation, negation, and ahistorical fallacy of ex-"World Teacher" Krishnamurti´s "I maintain that truth is a pathless land." Meanwhile, FD and Eleanors´ Christian United Nations helped nurture the rocky global cultural environment that faces corp exec profiteering and unsustainability. Al Gore, the ecumenical Christian, at least amply demonstrates the resurgent Christian integrity that has accompanied the culture´s history. His divorce was sad, but he´s on a mission for God through Jesus. I fear that you don´t get that.
•
brmckay @greenpeaceRdale1844
Jesus needs to have a word or two with you. I'm leaving you and him to sort out your mess. I figure you are probably schizophrenic as was my grandfather. Didn't do psychotropics to augment it, but spent his life in institutions. This is getting depressing.
Blocking you again. so I won't be reading any more feverish ego rants. At least for now.
•
greenpeaceRdale1844@ brmc
Ah, talk about a psychological break. Dude, I´m a guy who can lay down the line and serves you notice in your lala land. Apparently, your goat getting gotten, here by me, a straightshooter with a utility belt, is part of your spiritual facade and egotistical victimized MO, and you have nowhere to go but pushed over your edge. As Jesus actually is written to have said, there, pantheist, "Take the plank out of your own eye...." Too bad your gramps didn´t study psychology or have a non-scizophrenogenic atmosphere, and more. As for you, I have made the distinction between your philosophical language that is technically appropriate in this context, and your condition as a pantheist individual with what is in fact your strictly limited psychological self-awareness that directs your argumentation, making it actually mere self-expression. You do vaguely justify that with the term "a priori," but that is your personal semantics. As for schizophrenic, my use of metaphorical language is articulate like the multifarious scholar activist I am, for one. For another, you also confuse the polarized nature of perception, as is a central insight of Taoism and psychology (cognitive vs. affective). That makes you, as some might say, "a flaky pantheist." The subject, of course, is a transcendent God, and the fact is in this context, you hold logical fallacies that "bollocks" and "process" does not actually refute. And block away. That appears to be the format of your head, anyway.
Mark Rego Monteiro
Congratulations on leaving doctrinal Christianity. I got my bachelor´s in Bio Anthro after leaving atheism with a combo of UU principles and a non-objectifying form of theism based on scholar Huston Smith´s definition of the Chinese Tao. As an oncologist, you´ll appreciate that my dad died of his weakened system after radiation treatment for his cancer, along with a heart attack. My dad was interested in Psychology, but had let himself get addicted to work at least, and neglected his other physical and psychological, and spiritual, needs. I started my work life in Social Services, but diversified while maintaining my Bio Anthro and psychosocial foundations. As such, I might just point out that prayer is more than a placebo, as is meditation. The classic 1950s case of Mr. Wright and Dr. West provides a powerful kind of baseline. However, there are different approaches to prayer, with the Catholic appeals to saints and self-flagellating arguably being least associated with healing. Christian Science, however, was founded by a woman who founded a church that has a huge body of testimony literature that is illuminating. It also spawned offshoots from which emerged such lights as Louise Hay who healed her cancer through bodywork psychotherapy and holistics oriented to divine guidance and "the Infinity of Life where I am." Then, there are other testimonies and their contexts that include visions and details, and even the angles of hospital reports, that reveal contexts more extensive than reductionism. In fact, the phenomena of "emergent properties" contributes a significant angle. As for "helping hands," they aren´t mutually exclusive with "praying hands," just an angle of your apparent experience with "praying hands." As for a super entity allowing sick children to suffer, what kind of medical system has allowed the insights of Psychosomatics and Spiritual healing to be excluded and even derided? OC Simonton MD, for one, set up a cancer clinic, wrote about some miracle cases and other moderate improvements, and the psychodynamic challenges, and then a second book including spiritual components and a similar spectrum. Still, given people´s flaws, why blame God for a divided medical system of imperfect people?
