What good is the age of reason? Is it bad? This questions themselves are a bit self-defeating and hypocritical, but the most important and true questions/statements usually are (as in, "never say never"). The modern human mind seems locked into this new development of reason and logic, this was not always the case, the human mind in past was free flowing logic, We are being implanted by each other with mechanics, artificial parts and the mechanics of a proves b, a impacts b. There is a world beyond that, the human brain is still inherently keyed into a mystic experience, one devoid of characterization and the subsequent absence and horrible isolation from each other and what's around us. What can be done to deconstruct this? It seems like slavery, what do you guys think?
Matrix five sense reality is what most are geared to. People who think science explains everything annoy me. People who think religion explains everything annoy me as well.
Right. I think religion is one of the final frontiers of mystic reality, we as humans need that in some way or another. There are some things like dance, but that's characterized and determined as well. I think we're so overwhelmed with reason and dividing the world into parts, that we get exhausted and let ourselves ignore certain parts and that causes harm. We're killing our planet, which doesn't need us but we need. Notice we need plants, animals, things of the world, but not a single aspect of the earth needs us in any way? Isn't that the definition of a parasite? Religion seems to be just part of the game, same as reason is one aspect of the game, yet it's a fight now, everyone's fighting for rightness and that's not even the point. I don't get it. Are we doomed?
Spiritual things and the church should def. be separated. And about are we doomed... we as a species? Yes. And no.
Not really. Look at medieval and human behaviour. Just read about any age and what people did to people. Contrary to what you have said, there were ancient philosophers and people like Da'Vinci You are not implanted. Those are the most accurate describtions so far. I you think it is different and can prove it, go out there and make a world-scale breakthrough. What is wrong, is society. But it always was. Probably is and we won't be able to understand this world unless we advance more. mystic = yet not explained by science or mystic = bullshit What do you want to deconstruct and where? And what for? You don't agree with other, then live the life your way, don't force others to think the way you do. Convince, not force. Not really. Freedom is the ability to choose any from all the possibile choices. Not really, look again back in the history, where the was way less of reasoning. Yes, humans are earth parasite. This is nothing new. But on the other hand, we won't kill earth. Earth will get rid of us and rebuild. We will only kill ourselves. Of course. Probably not short-term, but long-term for sure. Maybe thats why we can't find any other civilizations near earth? They might have just reached some point and kill themselves, or be killed by natural conditions.
Science doesn't strictly 'explain'. It provides the best explanation based on current understanding of the universe, but contrary to religion it doesn't force one view. Science knows it isn't always right and is open for changes. (but you actually need to prove something, not say shit based on nothing) Plus, there are a lot of things science can't explain yet. Science is not some imaginary thing. It is a knowledge of mankind, gathered through centuries.
The problem with this is that there is a vast chasm between science in the abstract and the thoughts and opinions held by the people who constitute the scientific community, as well as the lay population at large which accepts on trust that which it cannot comprehend or apprehend on it's own. Science in fact does force one view upon it's adherents as pertains any tangible aspect of reality because it is concerned with establishing knowledge rather than with collecting wisdom, and the knowledge of the objective is not subject to entertaining opposing views; facts are by definition singular, concrete testable realities which may be applied universally and remain true for each beholder. I do, of course, understand the point you mean to make but this is something which should be clarified because people do have agendas and pride is very difficult to subdue in adversity; look for example at the immense length in time it can take for the scientific community at large to adapt to new paradigms. If it rattles the foundations of a worldview then no matter how intelligent a community may be it is going to be a tough pill to swallow. I know this is anathema to scientists but many of them are arrogant to an absurd extent and tend to dismiss that they stand on the shoulders of giants who were not so disrespectful to 'the divine'. I am no enemy to progress but nor am I a proponent of religious organization, neither ultimately explain the mystery of creation nor do I assume that either ever will, and the most important questions a person may have about his or her own existence can not come from elsewhere but within. Mysticism in my view is concerned solely with the ambiguous and vague mystery surrounding the multilayered states of consciousness and the experiences gathered in it's various states. The ontological and epistemological ramifications realized in the higher states of awareness are profoundly disturbing and contrary to what we are taught to suppose and I'd argue that this realm will never be subjected to quantification, as it is immeasurably vast and is violently opposed to observation.
Damn, that's exactly what I was going to say.:2thumbsup: Seriously, I was, just probably not as eloquently. You are correct. One great example of this very paradigm shift is very prominently evidenced in the Bible. (hear me out) I'm not talking about the message per se, but the literary style and manner in which esoteric aspects of are viewed/discussed. The Old Testament is very "free flowing" or "oriental" in it's styling and manner of conveying information via metaphor, allegory and life stories. The New Testament is much more analytical and matter of fact with logic based presentations and styling. This difference can even be seen in the different epistle based books. Those penned by any of the original apostles, Peter, James, John, Matthew, and Revelations are all written in a style similar to the Old Testament. The Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Mark are written in a more modern, "Greek" style. The Pauline epistles being in that form is understandable given the time and Paul's education and intelligence (he has been estimated to have an IQ of 170+). Mark's are written in that same style, though not as analytical, because he was the youngest, educated in Roman fashion and more well traveled than the others. Anyway, The Bible does give a clear representation of the difference you notice. It's only slavery if you allow it to be. Good to see around Cherokee.:sunny:
