Can a person be a Pantheist and a Marxist ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Can a person be a Pantheist and a Marxist at the sametime my understnding is that Albert Einstein was a Socialist and a Pantheist he spoke of God but did not mean a personal being known as God ?

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/faqs.htm

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/einstein.htm

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

[thesadmafioso]

Leon Trotsky in "The Tasks of Communist Education" (1922)


REVOLUTION AND MYSTICISM

What are the main characteristics of the revolutionist? It must be emphasised that we have no right to separate the revolutionist from the class basis upon which he has evolved, and without which is nothing. The revolutionist of our epoch, who can only be associated with the working class, possesses his special psychological characteristics, characteristics of intellect and will. If it is necessary and possible, the revolutionist shatters the historical obstructions, resorting to force for the purpose. If this is not possible, then he makes a detour, undermines and crushes, patiently and determinedly. He is a revolutionist because he does not fear to shatter obstacles and relentlessly to employ force; at the same time he knows its historical value. It is his constant endeavour to maintain his destructive and creative work at their highest pitch of activity, that is, to obtain from the given historical conditions the maximum which they are capable of yielding for the forward movement of the revolutionary class.

The revolutionist knows only external obstacles to his activity, no internal ones. That is: he has to develop within himself the capacity of estimating the arena of his activity in all its concreteness, with its positive and negative aspects, and to strike a correct political balance. But if he is internally hampered by subjective hindrances to action, if he is lacking in understanding or will power, if he is paralysed by internal discord, by religious, national, or craft prejudices, then he is at best only half a revolutionist. There are too many obstacles in the objective conditions already, and the revolutionist cannot allow himself the luxury of multiplying the objective hindrances and frictions by subjective ones. Therefore the education of the revolutionist must, above all, consist in his emancipation from that residue of ignorance and superstition, which is frequently found in a very “sensitive” consciousness. And therefore we adopt a ruthlessly irreconcilable attitude to anyone who utters a single word to the effect that mysticism or religious sentimentality might be combined with Communism. Religiousness is irreconcilable with the Marxian standpoint. We are of the opinion that atheism, as an inseparable element of the materialist view of life, is a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist. He who believes in another world is not capable of concentrating all his passion on the transformation of this one.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/periodicals/communist_review/1923/7/com_ed.htm

In brief, no.

[scarletghoul]

Pantheism seems to be so vague i think its possible to combine it with any ideology tbh

[tradeunionsupporter]

Im not a Pantheist myself I agree because Religion is used to keep people oppressed.

[Smyg]

Regardless of what anyone has written, I see no problem with any religious beliefs and Marxism together, unless said beliefs directly interfers in the economical ideas.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marxism and religion are not compatible because Marxism is a materialist view of the world. However, someone can be a marxist in their political beliefs and also be religious in believing there may be something that can not be understood at present (as long as they don't think this "other force" guides the material world directly). I can be done... (it may take a little intellectual dissonance) and personally, if you fight for the working class in a materialist way, I really don't care if you might also believe that we all eat cake after we die.

[graymouser]

Marxism is a materialist worldview. It looks at the conflict between economic classes in history, and says that this is the motive force of society. It's atheistic because it acknowledges no role in history for the intervention of mysticism and no positive role in society for its peddlers.

If by "pantheist" you mean a rigorous naturalist pantheist who acknowledges higher value, for want of a better word spiritual value, in nature - someone could have those feelings and also be a revolutionary with a Marxist outlook. Pantheism of this sort is so meaningless that it's a valid question of why you wouldn't just label yourself an atheist. If it's some kind of supernatural belief, I don't think you'd be a consistent Marxist. But that's a personal question.

[StoneFrog]

Pantheism is compatible with Marxism, Naturalist Pantheism would hold better to the materialistic elements of Marxism.

I myself believe in a duelist concept of pantheism, most of materialism i still holds true. No matter if your outlook is "compatible" with Marxism it doesn't stop you from being a communist or revolutionary.

[ZeroNowhere]

No.

[Nox]

Why the hell are you a Pantheist?

And just because Einstein mentioned the word God a few times, doesn't mean he believes in a God...

[trivas7]

Pantheism is compatible with Marxism, Naturalist Pantheism would hold better to the materialistic elements of Marxism.

I myself believe in a duelist concept of pantheism, most of materialism i still holds true. No matter if your outlook is "compatible" with Marxism it doesn't stop you from being a communist or revolutionary.
How does a natural(ist) pantheist hold a materialism view of the world? Whatever are you talking about? :confused:

I believe that there has to be a material basis to mystical experiences -- whatever that means. Mystical experiences are purely subjective and tell us nothing about the real world.

[L.A.P.]

Pantheism isn't compatible in itself. It's virtually impossible to say that all religious views of the world are equally valid and all gods exist.

[Astarte]

Leon Trotsky in "The Tasks of Communist Education" (1922)



Source: http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/periodicals/communist_review/1923/7/com_ed.htm

In brief, no.

Trotsky should stick to writing about Degenerated Workers' States, Stalinist Schools of Falsification, and Permanent Revolutions.

Time after time, if you examine the historical record, you will find leftist revolutionary groups and movements with esoteric flavorings.

[StoneFrog]

How does a natural(ist) pantheist hold a materialism view of the world? Whatever are you talking about? :confused:

I believe that there has to be a material basis to mystical experiences -- whatever that means. Mystical experiences are purely subjective and tell us nothing about the real world.

Everything is of one material that is physical, and everything physical is god. When thinking in terms of Pantheism you have to throw the notion of god in the sense of how Christian and Islam define god; god in a naturalist pantheist sense is expresses via the relationship between objects. Its not some god that tells you what is right and wrong, god just is.

May be better coming from an actual Naturalist Pantheist i know theres one floating about here.


Pantheism isn't compatible in itself. It's virtually impossible to say that all religious views of the world are equally valid and all gods exist.

huh??

[trivas7]

Everything is of one material that is physical, and everything physical is god.
This is quibbling at best and nonsense at worse. Perhaps this expresses the fact that matter is absolute; nevertheless, matter is not a god.

[StoneFrog]

This is quibbling at best and nonsense at worse. Perhaps this expresses the fact that matter is absolute; nevertheless, matter is not a god.

Im sure you think so, but nevertheless Naturalistic Pantheism is compatible with Marxism and Materialism.

[trivas7]

Im sure you think so, but nevertheless Naturalistic Pantheism is compatible with Marxism and Materialism.
On what grounds?

[Astarte]

This is quibbling at best and nonsense at worse. Perhaps this expresses the fact that matter is absolute; nevertheless, matter is not a god.

Well, there are many different theological takes on this. I would argue that the fact there is matter means there is a God, a Force, a Tao, a Supraphysical hegemonic generating force over the entire universe that transcends the human sensory system, etc. I look at it kind of like there is the material world and then there is mind - that is, when was the last time you found a physical table, or a chair, or a tree in your mind? The mind can originate an idea of how one can manipulate matter into a certain handicraft, or plant a tree, or even try to genetically engineer a tree. So, in this way all Matter comes from "Mind the Maker". Its like how Minerva was borne of Jupiter's forehead.

Its not hard to separate one's spiritual beliefs from their analysis of society. Holding spiritual beliefs doesn't make you understand dialectical materialism, or historical materialism any less soundly - in fact you probably are a lot better equipped to understanding Hegel and the dialectical system which Historical Materialism sprang from - in this way you can see the trees for the entire forest of the historical epoch.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, there are many different theological takes on this. I would argue that the fact there is matter means there is a God, a Force, a Tao, a Supraphysical hegemonic generating force over the entire universe that transcends the human sensory system, etc.

And how do you get from A to B? You can't just say "a proves b" you have to make a causal chain. This is my problem with the new age movement; they try to couch spirituality in scientific language and only end up muddying both.
How does A logically lead to B? What evidence are you basing your definitions of A and B on? Nothing. It just sounds good, so it "proves it" to you.
(Waiting for insert of some vague appeal to authority)

[Property Is Robbery]

I consider myself to be a Pantheist of sorts and I align myself with Marxist economics.

*Commence personal attacks, now*

[Thirsty Crow]

Why should they be compatible? After all, aren't "contradictions" allowed to exist within the thought process of an individual person? And that does not even touch upon the issue that the two do not perform the same function. In short, what is called "pantheism" does not deal with the way human societies could be organized alternatively to the present state of affairs (and the specifics of acheiving such an organization).

I don't understand this whole compatibility mania. If it were a case that a religious person, who also wants to see an end to capitalism, claims that religious practice, such as prayer, should function as the dominant model of achieveing communism, then sure, we have a blatant contradiction which will produce real failure.

[Property Is Robbery]

Based on your post I think you meant the first sentence to be "Why shouldn't they be compatible?"

Edit: Never mind

[GPDP]

Based on your post I think you meant the first sentence to be "Why shouldn't they be compatible?"

No, I think he has it right. What he's more or less saying is "who cares whether or not they're compatible?"

[Luís Henrique]

Can a person be a Pantheist and a Marxist at the sametime my understnding is that Albert Einstein was a Socialist and a Pantheist he spoke of God but did not mean a personal being known as God ?

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/faqs.htm

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/einstein.htm

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

Einstein was a "socialist" more or less in the same sence that Olof Palme was a socialist. He was certainly not a Marxist in any reasonable sence of the word. I also doubt that he would be a pantheist; he sounds more like a deist.

Can a person be a Marxist and a pantheist? Well, yes - people can be contradictory. If people really strive to reconcile such views - as opposed to acritically believing that they believe in both - they will come to abandon one of them, or both. Usually shunning them and telling them that they are bourgeois or reactionary or whatever because they hold incompatible views makes it easier for them to abandon Marxism and the left.

Luís Henrique

[Property Is Robbery]

Oh right. I misunderstood it the first time.

[Thirsty Crow]

Based on your post I think you meant the first sentence to be "Why shouldn't they be compatible?"

Edit: Never mind
Nope, I didn't intend to communicate that.
The point is, the two may not need to be reconciled precisely because pantheism is not a set of (rational) rules used to understand history (historical materialism) and does not even aim to provide such an explanation. It neither aims at an explanation of the current social antagonisms rooted in class relations, nor does it aim at providing propositions how these class relations might be abolished.
So why do people insist on reconciliation when the two do not produce conflicting statements concerning one and the same field of human existence?

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, there are many different theological takes on this. I would argue that the fact there is matter means there is a God, a Force, a Tao, a Supraphysical hegemonic generating force over the entire universe that transcends the human sensory system, etc. I look at it kind of like there is the material world and then there is mind - that is, when was the last time you found a physical table, or a chair, or a tree in your mind? The mind can originate an idea of how one can manipulate matter into a certain handicraft, or plant a tree, or even try to genetically engineer a tree. So, in this way all Matter comes from "Mind the Maker". Its like how Minerva was borne of Jupiter's forehead.
Yeah, not compatible with Marxism. Idealism generally is, in fact, "irreconcilable with the Marxian standpoint," surprisingly enough.

In any case, given that the Theses on Feuerbach and The German Ideology are presumably significant parts of Marxism, as well as the 1844 manuscripts, Engels' later writings and so on, it's fairly clear that Marxism cannot coexist peacefully with theism.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Leon Trotsky in "The Tasks of Communist Education" (1922)



Source: http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/periodicals/communist_review/1923/7/com_ed.htm

In brief, no.

Thanks for sharing an interesting text I was unfamiliar with.

It seems ironic to conclude a polemic against mysticism with such a mystical phraseology though:
Our Communist Party is permeated by the mighty spirit of Lenin. His revolutionary genius is with us. Our revolutionary lungs breathe the atmosphere of that better and higher doctrine which the preceding development of human thought has created. Thus it is that we are so profoundly convinced that tomorrow is ours. ~ Trotsky
If Trotsky can subvert a mystical notion like "spirit" and use it metaphorically, why should we reject a pantheist who subverts the word "God," using it metaphorically to mean Nature or the totality of the Universe?? Some theists will say the pantheist is not truly a theist because s/he does not believe in a personal, sentient God. Just as for Trotsky, speaking about the "mighty spirit of so and so who lives on in our hearts" can be separated from "religiousness" (How?), Can we not also subvert bourgeois religious discourse by talking about God and other mystical ideas (soul, spirit, heaven, hell, demons, angels, etc.) as we understand them? Trotsky makes use of religious linguistic technique, which is a fundamental aspect of religiousness. Socialists make use of religious techniques all the time ("converting" people to our ideology, "preaching" our ideas, etc.)

The preceding development of human thought has been shaped by religion and theism. Darwin's theory of natural selection was formed on the basis of the earlier doctrine of "natural theology," i.e. seeking to discover "God's design" through scientific inquiry.

Trotsky also explains that idea (of inheriting religious, bourgeois, even feudal ideas and assimilating/transforming/developing them into our own ideas) in What Is Proletarian Culture, and Is It Possible? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/art/tia23c.htm)


In order to explain the idea of a period of culture-bearing in the development of the working class more concretely, let us consider the historic succession not of classes, but of generations. Their continuity is expressed in the fact that each one of them, given a developing and not a decadent society, adds its treasure to the past accumulations of culture. But before it can do so, each new generation must pass through a stage of apprenticeship. It appropriates existing culture and transforms it in its own way, making it more or less different from that of the older generation. But this appropriation is not, as yet, a new creation, that is, it is not a creation of new cultural values, but only a premise for them. To a certain degree, that which has been said may also be applied to the destinies of the working masses which are rising towards epoch-making creative work. One has only to add that before the proletariat will have passed out of the stage of cultural apprenticeship, it will have ceased to be a proletariat.

...Does such an organic interrelation exist between our present-day proletarian poetry and the cultural work of the working class in its entirety? It is quite evident that it does not. Individual workers or groups of workers are developing contacts with the art which was created by the bourgeois intelligentsia and are making use of its technique, for the time being, in quite an eclectic manner. But is it for the purpose of giving expression to their own internal proletarian world? The fact is that it is far from being so. The work of the proletarian poets lacks an organic quality, which is produced only by a profound interaction between art and the development of culture in general. We have the literary works of talented and gifted proletarians, but that is not proletarian literature. However, they may prove to be some of its springs.

It is possible that in the work of the present generation many germs and roots and springs will be revealed to which some future descendant will trace the various sectors of the culture of the future, just as our present-day historians of art trace the theatre of Ibsen to the church mystery, or impressionism and cubism to the paintings of the monks. In the economy of art, as in the economy of nature, nothing is lost, and everything is connected in the large. But factually, concretely, vitally, the present-day work of the poets who have sprung from the proletariat is not developing at all in accordance with the plan which is behind the process of preparing the conditions of the future socialist culture, that is, the process of elevating the masses ...
Rejecting theists/religious people as non-revolutionaries, or hopelessly unable to fully assimilate and comprehend revolutionary theory, verges on the Utopian fantasy of creating a "new man" in order to trigger a revolution. Revolution will not be exacted by atheists, but by the working class (most of whom are theists). Contemporary religious ideas will not disappear after the revolution but will be appropriated, certain parts rejected, and transformed by new generations, and will evolve into something different. Whatever that different something is, it will at least be the byproduct of religion. Religion in the form it once was, is already withering away, but religiousness is not disappearing.

Apparently, as much as 1 in 6 ministers in some mainstream Christian sects are atheist/agnostic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362), and their views are "widely shared" amongst church members. So clearly the atheist/theist religious/non-religious distinction is not so clear cut. Certainly the experience of Liberation theology's dialogue between Christianity and Marxism has shown that religiousness is not "irreconcilable with the Marxian viewpoint." Nor is atheism and the materialist view of life irreconcilable with religion.


Lenin on Religion (http://sfr-21.org/lenin-religion.html)

While some socialists wanted to exclude workers who were religious from the revolutionary party, Lenin believed they should be welcomed without prejudice: "We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offense to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it." In fact, Lenin was not even opposed to recruiting priests into the revolutionary party. For example, he defended the revolutionary priest Father Gapon (http://sfr-21.org/provocateurs.html#8) against those who claimed he was an agent.

Fidel on Religion (http://sfr-21.org/fidel-religion.html)

Fidel emphasizes that revolutionaries need basic humanist values, and that sometimes people can get these values from their religion: "In our culture, as part of the so-called western world, there are undoubtedly components of Christian values. I think that among those values there are ethical and humane principles that are applicable to any epoch."

"If instead of being born and elaborating his ideas when he did, Christ had been born in these times, you can be sure - or at least I am - that his preaching would not have differed much from the ideas or the preaching that we revolutionaries of today try to bring the world."


Fidel calls for a new consciousness, a new awareness, "built by adding together more than just one revolutionary thought and the best ethical and humane ideas of more than one religion, of all authentic religions ... the sum total of the preaching of many political thinkers, of many schools and of many religions."


Fidel points out that he does not consider sects as true religions: "I am not thinking of sects, which of course exist, created for political ends and for the purpose of creating confusion and division by those who do not hesitate to even use religion for definite political objectives..."
Christians must decide definitively for the revolution . . . [but] they must come without the pretension of evangelizing the Marxists and without the cowardice of hiding their faith in order to assimilate themselves . . . When Christians dare to give an integral revolutionary testimony, the Latin American revolution will be invincible. ~ Che Guevara


There will be people who say, 'You don't mix this with that' and you will say, 'Watch me.' Underground Resistance - Transition (http://youtu.be/9Kd4AKKSn4w)

[L.A.P.]

huh??

You can't say that Brahma and Yaweh both exist, and while Yaweh was busy with Adam and Eve Braham was busy doing his thing. Hell, you can't even be a Pan-Hindu because the different schools of Hinduism contradict each other too much, they span from atheism to monotheism.

[Luís Henrique]

You can't say that Brahma and Yaweh both exist, and while Yaweh was busy with Adam and Eve Braham was busy doing his thing. Hell, you can't even be a Pan-Hindu because the different schools of Hinduism contradict each other too much, they span from atheism to monotheism.

That's not what "pantheism" means. "Pantheism" is a belief that everything is god, or part of god, not a belief in all different and mutually incompatible gods.

Luís Henrique

[Astarte]

And how do you get from A to B? You can't just say "a proves b" you have to make a causal chain. This is my problem with the new age movement; they try to couch spirituality in scientific language and only end up muddying both.
How does A logically lead to B? What evidence are you basing your definitions of A and B on? Nothing. It just sounds good, so it "proves it" to you.
(Waiting for insert of some vague appeal to authority)

No offense, but what are you talking about? This is the forum for religion right? Like theological, spiritual exchanged? I am not trying to prove anything on a scientific basis - it has already been firmly established in this forum before that no one can either prove or disprove the existence of "God" or a Higher Force to another individual, and my intent in the above post was not to try to prove anything to atheists but to add my "two cents" to a theological question.

Logic? You hope to try to prove or disprove spiritual questions using logic? Thats silly. Even dialectics say that A does not equal A.

Also, why do the hardline atheists refer to any mentioning of spirituality that does not fall into a major sect as "new age"? What is this even suppose to mean? Are you referring to the petty-bourgeois new age spirituality movement? Or the actual precession of the equinox dealing with when the constellation of Aquarius, the sign of human industry, will be rising with the Sun on the Vernal Equinox when the "new zodiacal age" arrives?

[Luís Henrique]

it has already been firmly established in this forum before that no one can either prove or disprove the existence of "God" or a Higher Force

But that only because theists will move the goal posts as their positions are debunked. "God" as defined by any particular given religion is easily debunked; it is only an abstract "god" that does not correspond to any recognisable set of human beliefs that cannot be easily disproved.

Luís Henrique

[Kiev Communard]

Some Bolsheviks were Empiriocriticists (i.e. the followers of the weak form of subjective idealism) in philosophy. This did not prevent them from identifying with Marxism in politics and social theory.

[ComradeMan]

Does pantheism or any other -theism fundamentally stop you from believing in "to each according to needs, and from each according to ability"- or general ideas of liberty and equality? ;)

Edit- note to Zeronowhere, the OP question was "Can a person be a pantheist and a Marxist?"- I think the idea was pretty clear.

[Astarte]

But that only because theists will move the goal posts as their positions are debunked. "God" as defined by any particular given religion is easily debunked; it is only an abstract "god" that does not correspond to any recognisable set of human beliefs that cannot be easily disproved.

Luís Henrique

But ... pretty much all religions' conceptions of God are abstractions. They don't actually believe in the fabled "Sky Daddy" ... well, unless you are talking about the Cargo Cult.

[Revolution starts with U]

No offense, but what are you talking about? This is the forum for religion right? Like theological, spiritual exchanged? I am not trying to prove anything on a scientific basis - it has already been firmly established in this forum before that no one can either prove or disprove the existence of "God" or a Higher Force to another individual, and my intent in the above post was not to try to prove anything to atheists but to add my "two cents" to a theological question.

But yet you said "X proves Y to me." Again, if you are going to make that assertion, you cannot later fall back on "it's just what I believe." Proof means A logically leads to B, not merely that they correspond.



Also, why do the hardline atheists refer to any mentioning of spirituality that does not fall into a major sect as "new age"? What is this even suppose to mean? Are you referring to the petty-bourgeois new age spirituality movement? Or the actual precession of the equinox dealing with when the constellation of Aquarius, the sign of human industry, will be rising with the Sun on the Vernal Equinox when the "new zodiacal age" arrives?

1) Im not an atheist. I am a post-theist/theological noncognitivist.
2) I really fail to see the difference. I call New Age any of the spiritual movements that give validity to astrology and divination.
3) We'll just have to see about this age of aquarius

[ZeroNowhere]

Does pantheism or any other -theism fundamentally stop you from believing in "to each according to needs, and from each according to ability"- or general ideas of liberty and equality? ;)
Nobody's saying that a person can't be both a pantheist and a utopian socialist, as far as I am aware. That is not what was asked, either.

[La Comédie Noire]

Religious people have made positive contributions to workers movements and some of the best abolitionists were christian.

Religion and Marxism isn't as big of a problem as some would have you believe.

[Astarte]

But yet you said "X proves Y to me." Again, if you are going to make that assertion, you cannot later fall back on "it's just what I believe." Proof means A logically leads to B, not merely that they correspond.

IF, I was going to logically try to prove my statement then I would not be able to fall back on "its just what I believe". But I am not trying to logically prove what I believe, and I cannot logically prove:


the fact there is matter means there is a God, a Force, a Tao, a Supraphysical hegemonic generating force over the entire universe that transcends the human sensory system, etc.

This is a very old idea though, going back to the gnostics, hermetica, etc. Essentially it is the same as "first there was void abstraction and from that void came the material". So, really it is dialectical - the negation of "A" - the pure ideal immaterial universe resulted in "A2" the creation of the material world.

The only way I could suggest it being "proved" to another subjectively would be to under-go an event where you believe you are dying so resolutely that your conscious ego actually dissolves into the unconsciousness so that the ego is no longer able to recognize the self, or any separation of thing or other from self.


2) I really fail to see the difference. I call New Age any of the spiritual movements that give validity to astrology and divination.

Ptolemy was new age? What about Ashurbanipal? By that standard almost every ancient society could be called "New Age". ;)

[Luís Henrique]

But ... pretty much all religions' conceptions of God are abstractions. They don't actually believe in the fabled "Sky Daddy" ... well, unless you are talking about the Cargo Cult.

Not so. The Christian God is a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, good, personal god who created the world. They can skirt the parts on Him creating the world in six days, or commanding the Jews to massacre the populations of Jericho and Ai, or changing his ideas about whether the creation was a good thing or not, etc. But even so, He is still not a deist's impersonal creator, nor a pantheist's imanent God, or a gnostic's imperfect semi-deity, etc. What theists do when arguing atheists or agnostics is to confuse their interlocutor's about the possibility of a general god that does not have the specific characteristics of Abraham's God, and then trying to pass this as an impossibility to discard the existence of this particular deity, as if it was the same as any god.

Luís Henrique

[ComradeMan]

Not so. The Christian God is a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, good, personal god who created the world.

Luís Henrique

There is no contradiction with what Astarte posited. If the G-d of the Christians (not sure whether G-d is a Christian... :confused:) is omnipotent then this same G-d can be both personal and omnipresent. The Gospel of Thomas also explores these ideas. Nevertheless the Christian idea of G-d is still derived from the Jewish idea of a fundamentally unknowable (in entirety) G-d. G-d as is revealed is not the entirety of G-d.

[Astarte]

Not so. The Christian God is a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, good, personal god who created the world. They can skirt the parts on Him creating the world in six days, or commanding the Jews to massacre the populations of Jericho and Ai, or changing his ideas about whether the creation was a good thing or not, etc. But even so, He is still not a deist's impersonal creator, nor a pantheist's imanent God, or a gnostic's imperfect semi-deity, etc. What theists do when arguing atheists or agnostics is to confuse their interlocutor's about the possibility of a general god that does not have the specific characteristics of Abraham's God, and then trying to pass this as an impossibility to discard the existence of this particular deity, as if it was the same as any god.

Luís Henrique




Definition of ABSTRACT

1
a : disassociated from any specific instance <an abstract entity>
b : difficult to understand : abstruse <abstract problems>
c : insufficiently factual : formal <possessed only an abstract right>
2
: expressing a quality apart from an object <the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract>
3
a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical <abstract science>
b : impersonal, detached <the abstract compassion of a surgeon — Time>
4
: having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content <abstract painting>

I was primarily thinking of the God of Abrahamism, "YHWH" The Tetragrammaton. "I am What I am". As a type of 1b Abstraction, but obviously the 1a definition contradicts this (appearance on the Sinai, Jacob wrestling the Angel, etc...). Actually, you make a good point as to why the God of Abrahamism is not an abstraction unless you look at it through the lens of certain "mystery schools" within Abrahamism.

Still, even in these terms, and the terms of creation, omnipotence, omniscience, etc ... we are still dealing with at least a definition "3a" Abstraction, as it is all theological; i.e. "theoretical", as well as sometimes a definition "4" Abstraction - as for example in Islam you cannot create an image of Allah - and the Host of the Lord speaks for Allah, rather than Allah itself speaking ... even in the Old Testament when God does intervene it is not usually as "YHWH", which is an immaterial abstraction, but as this immaterial abstraction attempting to reconcile itself with the material world through various taken physical forms - the Pillar of Fire / Cloud that guided the Hebrews in the Sinai, "God" Housed in the Ark, Jacob's wrestling the Angel, Ezekiel's Wheel, The Plagues on Egypt, - in the New Testament; Christ, etc... Even when YHWH appears to Moses in his "true form" - the whole point is that Moses cannot comprehend what he is experiencing - God declares himself an abstraction - "I am What I am".

[Revolution starts with U]

IF, I was going to logically try to prove my statement then I would not be able to fall back on "its just what I believe". But I am not trying to logically prove what I believe, and I cannot logically prove:

"The fact that there's matter means there is a God" how? You can't just say that, and expect people to take it as a given. You did logically try to proof your statement when you said "All x are Y" (all matter comes from God).




This is a very old idea though, going back to the gnostics, hermetica, etc. Essentially it is the same as "first there was void abstraction and from that void came the material". So, really it is dialectical - the negation of "A" - the pure ideal immaterial universe resulted in "A2" the creation of the material world.

And this means there is a God, why? Don't get me wrong, I'm a hermetic (I just wrote a song about All-mind and the birthing of the children Attraction, Information, Certainty, and Probability). But I'm also a science-ist. I can get with "x is evidence of y." But "all x are y" requires undeniable proof.


The only way I could suggest it being "proved" to another subjectively would be to under-go an event where you believe you are dying so resolutely that your conscious ego actually dissolves into the unconsciousness so that the ego is no longer able to recognize the self, or any separation of thing or other from self.

And this would prove there is a God because...? I have done it, and you don't need to almost die. One only needs focus.
Have you ever felt the frantic thoughts of a squirell hunting through the forest?




Ptolemy was new age? What about Ashurbanipal? By that standard almost every ancient society could be called "New Age". ;)

If they lived today and tried to couch long outdated beliefs in the language of science, yes I would call them New Age.

[StoneFrog]

"The fact that there's matter means there is a God" how? You can't just say that, and expect people to take it as a given. You did logically try to proof your statement when you said "All x are Y" (all matter comes from God).


So where do you say matter came from?

[Commissar Rykov]

You can be whatever the hell you want I don't see why you need vindication about your religious views. I don't see what the problem could be unless your religious beliefs are tied into keeping the Bourgeoisie in Power and worshiping Capital or some shit. I'm always disturbed by the people who need to vindicate their religious beliefs just as much as I am disturbed by the Militant Atheists just as happily waiting to climb down their throats and tear them a new ass.

[Astarte]

And this would prove there is a God because...? I have done it, and you don't need to almost die. One only needs focus.

Right, I am not recommending it, but it seems that the most profound "enlightenment experiences" come from this kind of situation - ego death, without physical death - many Buddhist traditions refer to this. Its sort of like Sudden versus Gradual enlightenment.


Have you ever felt the frantic thoughts of a squirell hunting through the forest?

no, but i know what you mean.




If they lived today and tried to couch long outdated beliefs in the language of science, yes I would call them New Age.

What about the Freemasons, they believe in astrological jojo, are they New Age?

[Revolution starts with U]

So where do you say matter came from?
1) I wouldn't be so presumptious
2) I say, as far as we know, it comes from the combination of the 4 fundamental forces. Where do those come from? Refer to answer 1.



Right, I am not recommending it, but it seems that the most profound "enlightenment experiences" come from this kind of situation - ego death, without physical death - many Buddhist traditions refer to this. Its sort of like Sudden versus Gradual enlightenment.

All well and good. But again, how does even ego-death prove God?
I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just saying. We should not be so presumptious as to say what God is without proper proof.




no, but i know what you mean.

What about the Freemasons, they believe in astrological jojo, are they New Age?

Sure. You shouldn't be so offended by it. I'm not an atheist, but I don't get all bent out of shape when people refer to me as such. :cool:

[RHIZOMES]

Hey guys, massive hole in your "religion is a tool to oppress" shindig. What about liberation theologies, particularly in the Carribean and Latin America? Religion is a worldview, a system of symbolic meaning that can be used for both oppression and resistance.

If someone feels their spiritual beliefs don't contradict their political beliefs, who gives a fuck? Honestly.

Pantheism, as the OP described it, hasn't even been implicated in the legitimation of any political system. Why does everyone have to get on their psuedo-materialist high horses? Dialectics could be construed as a lot more consistent with pantheism then a lot of crude materialists in this topic are really acknowledging. It doesn't even really express any real class hierarchy like monotheism does.

[Astarte]

All well and good. But again, how does even ego-death prove God?
I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just saying. We should not be so presumptious as to say what God is without proper proof.

Yeah, that's true. God and enlightenment experiences are indeed two different things. The enlightenment experience in and of itself means there is a higher kind of consciousness attainable by humans. In hermetic and gnostic thought this "gnosis", or enlightenment was possible for humans owing to humans essentially being spiritual beings enveloped in matter bodies. Thus, this higher consciousness is their spiritual ability to tap into the higher sphere from which their spiritual selves are originally from.

In Hinduism there is the Atman, or higher, spiritual self which one attains through working through ones Dharma on Earth. This idea is, or at least has been associated with the same elevated type of consciousness; i.e. "Krishna Consciousness".

Taoist Sages of course believed that their minds were tapping into the Tao, which was the binding force of the entire universe - Buddhists too hoped to achieve this higher mind.

So, when I say, "God", that's what I mean ... Enlightenment allows you to know that there is some ineffable and unnameable force present; knowing something exists is different from being able to understand it though - one person might call it "God", another might not call it anything.






Sure. You shouldn't be so offended by it. I'm not an atheist, but I don't get all bent out of shape when people refer to me as such. :cool:

True... :p

[Revolution starts with U]

Edited for "clarity:"

Yeah, that's true. Pleku and fraggraggle experiences are indeed two different things. The fraggraggle experience in and of itself means there is a higher kind of consciousness attainable by humans. In hermetic and gnostic thought this "gnosis", or fraggraggle was possible for humans owing to humans essentially being pimpomfikafika beings enveloped in matter bodies. Thus, this romroy consciousness is their pimpomfikafika ability to tap into the romroy sphere from which their pimpomfikafika selves are originally fromm.

In Hinduism there is the Atman, or romroy, pimpomfikafika self which one attains through working through ones Dharma on Earth. This idea is, or at least has been associated with the same elevated type of consciousness; i.e. "Krishna Consciousness".

Taoist Sages of course believed that their minds were tapping into the Tao, which was the binding force of the entire universe - Buddhists too hoped to achieve this romroy mind.

So, when I say, "Pleku", that's what I mean ... Fraggleraggle allows you to know that there is some ineffable and unnameable force present; knowing something exists is different from being able to understand it though - one person might call it "Pleku", another might not call it anything.



1) What does "higher consciousness" mean? Does Chris Angel have a higher consciousness becuase he can do magic tricks too? One shouldn't be so quick to believe what people say about themselves. When I have met and "prayed" with Tibetan monks, they don't talk about the nature of the Tibetan feudal caste system.
2) "God did it" is not a scientific proposal. It could be just as likely that there is an all-mind as it is that you read into the inter-connected electromagnetic fields of the planetary system. Maybe that is the All-mind. But again, you are still saying "knowing something exists is different from understanding it." You DON'T know an all-mind exists. You know that sometimes there are strange phenomena not easily explainable.
3) Mother lion adopts baby gazelle; lions are spiritual beings in matter bodies. "God is love" explains nothing about love, nor God.

[Revolution starts with U]

no, but i know what you mean.



Just to come back to this, to kind-of drive the point home. I have been a squirrell hunting thorugh the forest. It felt real. But was it actually happening or was I making it up? I wouldn't be so presumptious as to say.
But there is strong evidence coming out that says it is possible; that since consciousness is stored electronically, it can be transmitted through any electromagnetic field.

[Astarte]

Edited for "clarity:"


1) What does "higher consciousness" mean? Does Chris Angel have a higher consciousness becuase he can do magic tricks too? One shouldn't be so quick to believe what people say about themselves. When I have met and "prayed" with Tibetan monks, they don't talk about the nature of the Tibetan feudal caste system.
2) "God did it" is not a scientific proposal. It could be just as likely that there is an all-mind as it is that you read into the inter-connected electromagnetic fields of the planetary system. Maybe that is the All-mind. But again, you are still saying "knowing something exists is different from understanding it." You DON'T know an all-mind exists. You know that sometimes there are strange phenomena not easily explainable.
3) Mother lion adopts baby gazelle; lions are spiritual beings in matter bodies. "God is love" explains nothing about love, nor God.

If you know what I mean, and truly, as you say you have, have experienced altered states that have felt overwhelmingly real subjectively ... why do you keep cutting hairs in terms of my theological explanations? If you want I could sit here and write page after page in an attempt to taxonomy spiritual experiences to the best of my ability, and further describe them with adjectives - but what is the purpose of that? I am not trying to convince anyone, and am really only addressing those who already know. Thanks, over and out.

EDIT: No, I would argue that you either know there is a higher reality or have no idea whatsoever - that is the nature of the enlightenment experience - sometimes you think you are a squirrel running through the woods, i guess, and sometimes you are brought back to natal or pre-natal consciousness. I am not going to argue over and over whether I know what I know or not, and especially not try to prove it to anyone with hair splitting, logic or word games...

Consciousness is stored electronically? What kind of nonsense is that? Man, speaking of burdens of proof. Seems electricity plays a role in consciousness. No one "knows" where consciousness is "Stored".

[RHIZOMES]

Also, re: bandying about the term "materialism" when talking about the relationship between Marxism and spirituality. Materialism is a methodology that was in reaction to Hegel's Idealism. That means that while Hegelians thought that language and consciousness was the determinant of our reality, Marx thought it was rather our concrete material experience that determined our consciousness. Materialism was not initially conceptualised as an atheist credo, it was meant as an anti-Idealist credo. So when someone says they have spiritual beliefs yet also like what Marx has to say, they don't hold contradictory beliefs as long as they don't let their spiritual beliefs inform their interpretation of social reality, which would basically be a religious form of idealism.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you know what I mean, and truly, as you say you have, have experienced altered states that have felt overwhelmingly real subjectively ... why do you keep cutting hairs in terms of my theological explanations? If you want I could sit here and write page after page in an attempt to taxonomy spiritual experiences to the best of my ability, and further describe them with adjectives - but what is the purpose of that? I am not trying to convince anyone, and am really only addressing those who already know. Thanks, over and out.

I don't want pages and pages. I want you to stop making assertions of truth when you don't know. You can throw all the adjectives on a fallacy you want, it's still a fallacy.
I am asking you not to make blanket assertions like "matter proves there is a god" and then falling back on "it's what I believe" when you are called out on those assertions.
Nothing like playing the persecution card becuase your beliefs were questioned; an age-old tactic of the religious.



EDIT: No, I would argue that you either know there is a higher reality or have no idea whatsoever - that is the nature of the enlightenment experience - sometimes you think you are a squirrel running through the woods, i guess, and sometimes you are brought back to natal or pre-natal consciousness. I am not going to argue over and over whether I know what I know or not, and especially not try to prove it to anyone with hair splitting, logic or word games...

You're just copping out again. A friend of mine plays this card a lot too. I asked him "what if one meditated everyday and remained an atheist?" His answer was, despite the numerous people I brought up to him that do just that, that it wouldn't happen. He even claimed those meditating atheists actually DO believe in God they just won't admit it to themselves.
Materialists would have far less of a problem with spiritualists if spiritualists would stop making blatantly untrue blanket statements.



Consciousness is stored electronically? What kind of nonsense is that? Man, speaking of burdens of proof. Seems electricity plays a role in consciousness. No one "knows" where consciousness is "Stored"

I offer as my burden of proof; neurology. This is basically an uncontested fact, and you have been reading far too much pop philosophy. Consciousness, wherever it originates, is stored in the neural network of the brain, to deny that is to deny reality.

[ComradeMan]

You're just copping out again. A friend of mine plays this card a lot too. I asked him "what if one meditated everyday and remained an atheist?" His answer was, despite the numerous people I brought up to him that do just that, that it wouldn't happen. He even claimed those meditating atheists actually DO believe in God they just won't admit it to themselves. Materialists would have far less of a problem with spiritualists if spiritualists would stop making blatantly untrue blanket statements.

Well Jains meditate a lot and many Dharmic religions/philosophies are "atheistic" and yet do have notions of consciousness and different states of cosciousness that would not necessarily tie in with a hard materialistic explanation.


I offer as my burden of proof; neurology. This is basically an uncontested fact, and you have been reading far too much pop philosophy. Consciousness, wherever it originates, is stored in the neural network of the brain, to deny that is to deny reality.

Not so fast. No scientist, neurologist or medical doctor to date has ever pinned down exactly the what, where, how and why of consciousness. Neurological studies have also failed to determine exactly what consciousness may be and what may cause it. Blind-sight is also another problematical area for a neurological explanation of consciousness which seems to contradict, at least what we know, of a purely neurological explanation of consciousness. There is no consensus and not all scientists agree by any means, for example the Nobel prize winning Professor John Eccles (neurophysiologist) posited the theory that the "mind" is a separate entity that cannot be reduced to neurons and brain cells alone. Furthermore, in about 10-20% of patients who suffer from cardiac arrest (implying little-to-no electrical activity in the brain) consciousness seems to remain- this leading to the phenomenon of the so-called "near-death-experiences".

Spiritualists (in the sense of this thread) would have far less of a problem with materialists if materialists would stop maing blatantly untrue blanket statements- and being closed-minded.

Here's an interesting article that discusses the matter:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201004/

Now, let's look at some physics. Danah Zohar (physicist) has proposed that that basic particles may have some form of consciousness and David Bohm (physicist) also suggested that at the level of sub-atomic participle physics something "mind-like" is going on. The experiment carried out by Alain Aspect in 1982 at the University of Paris also has implications for some idea of non-biologically/neurologically determined communication between particles. Bell's theorem of indivisibility, from a philosophical point of view at least, certainly does have parallels with a pantheistic interpretation of the universe- nothing is independent from the entirety fully, not even the observer.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not so fast. No scientist, neurologist or medical doctor to date has ever pinned down exactly the what, where, how and why of consciousness. Neurological studies have also failed to determine exactly what consciousness may be and what may cause it. Blind-sight is also another problematical area for a neurological explanation of consciousness which seems to contradict, at least what we know, of a purely neurological explanation of consciousness.

How?


There is no consensus and not all scientists agree by any means, for example the Nobel prize winning Professor John Eccles (neurophysiologist) posited the theory that the "mind" is a separate entity that cannot be reduced to neurons and brain cells alone.

So what is it? Although in language we make a distinction between mind and brain, the evidence seems to indicate that in material terms they are synonymous.


Furthermore, in about 10-20% of patients who suffer from cardiac arrest (implying little-to-no electrical activity in the brain) consciousness seems to remain- this leading to the phenomenon of the so-called "near-death-experiences".

How does cardiac arrest imply no electrical activity in the brain? It's a failure of the heart, not the brain. Plus there would be some leftover oxygen in the blood at the blood-brain barrier, and if I understand human cell biology correctly then the neurons themselves would have some (admittedly limited) reserves too. But then again, since people who have been revived can still remember who they are, that indicates that long-term memory isn't volatile anyway.


Spiritualists (in the sense of this thread) would have far less of a problem with materialists if materialists would stop maing blatantly untrue blanket statements- and being closed-minded.

Bollocks. Far from being close-minded, materialists are mostly open to evidence. Which has thus far not been forthcoming.


Here's an interesting article that discusses the matter:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201004/

Considering they derived their results from electroencephalographs, which observe the brain, what is the relevance?


Now, let's look at some physics. Danah Zohar (physicist) has proposed that that basic particles may have some form of consciousness and David Bohm (physicist) also suggested that at the level of sub-atomic participle physics something "mind-like" is going on.

What is the basis for this hypothesis?


The experiment carried out by Alain Aspect in 1982 at the University of Paris also has implications for some idea of non-biologically/neurologically determined communication between particles.

How do you get from non-local interactions to whatever it is you're saying? The human brain doesn't operate at the quantum level.


Bell's theorem of indivisibility, from a philosophical point of view at least, certainly does have parallels with a pantheistic interpretation of the universe- nothing is independent from the entirety fully, not even the observer.

You know, when I Googled "Bell's theorem of indivisibility" I was expecting at least a Wikipedia entry, but instead got a load of cranky bullshit. All on the first page. So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the concept.

[ComradeMan]

So what is it? Although in language we make a distinction between mind and brain, the evidence seems to indicate that in material terms they are synonymous.

If you ignore the anomalies. The argument is not pro-Astarte but rather contra-RSWU's absolute position of presenting something as an established fact which is far from established. The only established fact with regards to consciousness is that there are conflicting theories and we are not very sure.


How does cardiac arrest imply no electrical activity in the brain? It's a failure of the heart, not the brain. Plus there would be some leftover oxygen in the blood at the blood-brain barrier, and if I understand human cell biology correctly then the neurons themselves would have some (admittedly limited) reserves too. But then again, since people who have been revived can still remember who they are, that indicates that long-term memory isn't volatile anyway.

Because electrical activity in the brain is impossible for anything more than a few seconds without oxygenated blood-flow. Even if there were some left-over oxygenated blood in some specific area of the brain and/or reserve neuron funtion it would not explain retained states of consciousness if we are to accept that the thought process in brain terms is global in function. The problem is with the NDE consciousness of some patients who don't just remember the "before" but the "during"- for which science has not come up with an explantion.


You know, when I Googled "Bell's theorem of indivisibility" I was expecting at least a Wikipedia entry, but instead got a load of cranky bullshit. All on the first page. So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

I notice you skip over Zohar, Bohm and Aspect. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you ignore the anomalies. The argument is not pro-Astarte but rather contra-RSWU's absolute position of presenting something as an established fact which is far from established. The only established fact with regards to consciousness is that there are conflicting theories and we are not very sure.

There are multiple reasons to take the brain as the seat of consciousness. Number one being it's reliance on the brain - patients who undergo NDEs still have a more or less intact brain, even if it has been briefly starved of oxygen.


Because electrical activity in the brain is impossible for anything more than a few seconds without oxygenated blood-flow. Even if there were some left-over oxygenated blood in some specific area of the brain and/or reserve neuron funtion it would not explain retained states of consciousness if we are to accept that the thought process in brain terms is global in function. The problem is with the NDE consciousness of some patients who don't just remember the "before" but the "during"- for which science has not come up with an explantion.

Is this with reference to out-of-body experiences that are known to occur during NDEs? Because if we take into consideration the human brain's capacity for confabulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation), we have the problem of differentiating between what the patient thought they experienced and what actually happened.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

I notice you skip over Zohar, Bohm and Aspect. :rolleyes:

You still have the problem of non-locality being a quantum phenomenon, and brains not being quantum mechanical. That's also accepting your premise that quantum non-locality is somewhow indicative of a non-corporeal aspect to consciousness, which is dubious.

If consciousness is not solely a result of activity in the brain, then where else does it come from?

[ComradeMan]

There are multiple reasons to take the brain as the seat of consciousness. Number one being it's reliance on the brain - patients who undergo NDEs still have a more or less intact brain, even if it has been briefly starved of oxygen.

Indeed there are but there's still a lot of stuff that defies explanation.


Is this with reference to out-of-body experiences that are known to occur during NDEs? Because if we take into consideration the human brain's capacity for confabulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation), we have the problem of differentiating between what the patient thought they experienced and what actually happened.

That still doesn't explain people who were clinically brain-dead being able to explain in some detail what was going on whilst they were brain dead.


You still have the problem of non-locality being a quantum phenomenon, and brains not being quantum mechanical. That's also accepting your premise that quantum non-locality is somewhow indicative of a non-corporeal aspect to consciousness, which is dubious.

You're assuming of course that consciousness is a purely biological phenomenon. We don't know anything for sure. But the comments about quantum were intended to move the discourse along. Perhaps it is our brains that are designed to tune into concsiousness like an antenna? Who knows?


If consciousness is not solely a result of activity in the brain, then where else does it come from?

Who knows? But there's still a lot of stuff that has not yet been determined and the original point was that it was unfair of RSWU to attack Astarte based on hard-scientific fact that turns out to be less than hard scientific fact.

[ZeroNowhere]

Also, re: bandying about the term "materialism" when talking about the relationship between Marxism and spirituality. Materialism is a methodology that was in reaction to Hegel's Idealism. That means that while Hegelians thought that language and consciousness was the determinant of our reality, Marx thought it was rather our concrete material experience that determined our consciousness. Materialism was not initially conceptualised as an atheist credo, it was meant as an anti-Idealist credo. So when someone says they have spiritual beliefs yet also like what Marx has to say, they don't hold contradictory beliefs as long as they don't let their spiritual beliefs inform their interpretation of social reality, which would basically be a religious form of idealism.
Hegel's idealist project was motivated to a large part by the fact that he saw materialism as incompatible with religion, using arguments that Marx alluded to approvingly. Idealism was generally not restricted to stating vaguely that 'consciousness is the determinant of our reality', so much as that thought as such is prior to material existence and manifests itself through this. "This result – the subject knowing itself as absolute self-consciousness – is therefore God, absolute Spirit, the self-knowing and self-manifesting idea. Real man and real nature become mere predicates – symbols of this hidden, unreal man and of this unreal nature." In any case, if thought presupposes sensuous, material and social practice for its sense, then this would entail that a universal subject, absolute subject, spiritual creator, etc., is infeasible.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well Jains meditate a lot and many Dharmic religions/philosophies are "atheistic" and yet do have notions of consciousness and different states of cosciousness that would not necessarily tie in with a hard materialistic explanation.



That's all well and good. And I could care less about taking a hard materialist approach. What my point is, is that "if you just did what I did you would think like me" is a bs cop-out of an argument.


Not so fast. No scientist, neurologist or medical doctor to date has ever pinned down exactly the what, where, how and why of consciousness. Neurological studies have also failed to determine exactly what consciousness may be and what may cause it. Blind-sight is also another problematical area for a neurological explanation of consciousness which seems to contradict, at least what we know, of a purely neurological explanation of consciousness.
That doesn't change the fact that consciousness is stored and acts electrically. My argument was not where consciousness orginates, but where it is stored and interacts. Actually I didn't even make an argument, let me just make that clear before we go too far. I made an "if - then" hypothesis; if consciousness is transmitted electrically, then it is possible that it can be transmitted through any electrical field.

There is no consensus and not all scientists agree by any means, for example the Nobel prize winning Professor John Eccles (neurophysiologist) posited the theory that the "mind" is a separate entity that cannot be reduced to neurons and brain cells alone.
Except that he won his Nobel for describing just how important neurons were :lol:. Besides, have you read his 3 worlds idea (I wont even dignify it with the term hypothesis)? I mean, come on...
(Note that this is not a refutation of his ideas. Im just saying that it's not any train I'm going to jump on without conclusive evidence)
Looking further into him, he says the terms "I can't believe (that there is not spirit) or words to that effect, which again is common amongst the spiritualist. I rarely see materialists saying "I cannot believe there is a spirit world" but rather "the evidence of a spirit world is dubious at best."

Furthermore, in about 10-20% of patients who suffer from cardiac arrest (implying little-to-no electrical activity in the brain) consciousness seems to remain- this leading to the phenomenon of the so-called "near-death-experiences"
Can you cite this, I would be interested to know just how long they were under cardiac arrest. You can go pretty long in, 5mins even, CA and only suffer slight brain damage, not vegetablism as would be required under a strict materialist hypothesis.



Spiritualists (in the sense of this thread) would have far less of a problem with materialists if materialists would stop maing blatantly untrue blanket statements- and being closed-minded.

Again, since I made an "if - then" hypothesis. So if you could link my blanket statement that was not true...? Actually I did make one. I said consciousness being stored electronically was indisputable. That one was wrong, I was so wrapped up in thinking my if-then was my actual beliefs I used the wrong word. What I mean to say is that consciousness is transmitted electrically, which is undeniable.


Here's an interesting article that discusses the matter:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201004/

It is interesting. But accessing higher dimensions is still accessing something real. Dare I say, were this hypothesis proved true, it would largely destroy one of the last remaining remnants of the God of the Gaps? (I know we're not expressly talking about God here, but we are talking about spirit. And invariably, the spiritualists refers to spirit as God)


Now, let's look at some physics. Danah Zohar (physicist) has proposed that that basic particles may have some form of consciousness and David Bohm (physicist) also suggested that at the level of sub-atomic participle physics something "mind-like" is going on.
Danah Zohar did her post-grad work in philosophy, religion, and psychology. Calling her a physicist, in this context, is a little bit disengenous. But I can't find any information on her ideas about the mind so I will not comment on them; I can only find her work on "spiritual capital."

The experiment carried out by Alain Aspect in 1982 at the University of Paris also has implications for some idea of non-biologically/neurologically determined communication between particles.
Why don't we wait until the results of these types of experiments are conclusive, which as of yet, they are not. Tho, I am a big fan of "spooky action at a distance."
But again, even if there is slight evidence of quantum non-locality, there is absolutely no evidence that this is obtainable or useful at anything but the quantum level. Trying to tie it to consciousness is reaching at best.


Bell's theorem of indivisibility, from a philosophical point of view at least, certainly does have parallels with a pantheistic interpretation of the universe- nothing is independent from the entirety fully, not even the observer.

Since Alian's experiments were on this effect, see above.



If you ignore the anomalies. The argument is not pro-Astarte but rather contra-RSWU's absolute position of presenting something as an established fact which is far from established. The only established fact with regards to consciousness is that there are conflicting theories and we are not very sure.

It is only contra to my position if you misrepresent my position. This is partially my fault, as I meant more along the lines of transmitted when I said stored, which would still make it stored in the electronics of the brain, but transmitted is a more accurate assesment.



Because electrical activity in the brain is impossible for anything more than a few seconds without oxygenated blood-flow.
Citation? As seen above, one can undergo up to 5mins of cardiac arrest before brain injury even begins to happen.

Even if there were some left-over oxygenated blood in some specific area of the brain and/or reserve neuron funtion it would not explain retained states of consciousness if we are to accept that the thought process in brain terms is global in function. The problem is with the NDE consciousness of some patients who don't just remember the "before" but the "during"- for which science has not come up with an explantion.
I can assure you that "they're in the spirit world" is not a scientific explanation either :lol:





(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

I notice you skip over Zohar, Bohm and Aspect. :rolleyes:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)
And he had good reason to, as you can see above.


That still doesn't explain people who were clinically brain-dead being able to explain in some detail what was going on whilst they were brain dead.
And you don't need a spirit world to explain it. But again, can you cite this; it is intriguing.



You're assuming of course that consciousness is a purely biological phenomenon. We don't know anything for sure. But the comments about quantum were intended to move the discourse along. Perhaps it is our brains that are designed to tune into concsiousness like an antenna? Who knows?

No he wasn't. He was "assuming" that there is no evidence that the EPR paradox is accessible to anything but quantum phenomena.




Who knows? But there's still a lot of stuff that has not yet been determined and the original point was that it was unfair of RSWU to attack Astarte based on hard-scientific fact that turns out to be less than hard scientific fact.

I did not attack her, and I certainly didn't attack her based on hard scientific fact. Again, this is an old tactic of the spiritualist; to take questioning their fallacy as an attack on them personally. It gets tired real fast :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

That's all well and good. And I could care less about taking a hard materialist approach. What my point is, is that "if you just did what I did you would think like me" is a bs cop-out of an argument.

That's not really what she said though- that's how you have chosen to interpret her comment.


That doesn't change the fact that consciousness is stored and acts electrically. My argument was not where consciousness orginates, but where it is stored and interacts...

Consciousness is "not" stored and consciousness and memory are not identical. Someone who is "conscious" of themselves is aware of their own identity and even someone who is a victim of complete amnesia is still self-aware even if confused. The consciousness experiences the memory, i.e. the act of recall. The trouble with this is we get trapped in a swamp of differing paradigms and definitions- the fact is that we don't actually have a substantive definition of what consciousness actually is.


Except that he won his Nobel for describing just how important neurons were :lol:. Besides, have you read his 3 worlds idea (I wont even dignify it with the term hypothesis)? I mean, come on...(Note that this is not a refutation of his ideas. Im just saying that it's not any train I'm going to jump on without conclusive evidence)
Looking further into him, he says the terms "I can't believe (that there is not spirit) or words to that effect, which again is common amongst the spiritualist. I rarely see materialists saying "I cannot believe there is a spirit world" but rather "the evidence of a spirit world is dubious at best."

This is a curious comment on many levels. The man was a Nobel prize winning neurolphysiologist who wrote on neurons and yet still maintained that there was something we couldn't just explain away with neurons alone. You say you won't "dignify" his ideas with the term hypothesis yet at the same time you aren't going to commit yourself to refuting his ideas... after basically trashing them beforehand. :confused:


Can you cite this, I would be interested to know just how long they were under cardiac arrest. You can go pretty long in, 5mins even, CA and only suffer slight brain damage, not vegetablism as would be required under a strict materialist hypothesis.

Let's remember that the brain cannot store either oxygen or oxygenated blood and despite being only about 2% of our body weight uses 20% of our oxygen supply. When starved of oxygen brain death will begin to occur at about three to maximum six minutes unless CPR is initiated.

Here's some stats from the Netherlands
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

There are plenty of case histories out there- I am not going to vouch for them as some may well be frauds, hallucinations and such but there still remains a core of documented cases that seem inexplicable. You read through the cases and sort the sheep from the goats.


What I mean to say is that consciousness is transmitted electrically, which is undeniable.

That consciousness is evidenced by electrical activity is not the same as consciousness being due to electrival activity. We don't know for sure and that's why there is no consensus within the medical/scientific community either whereas other things like digestion are pretty uncontroversial.


It is interesting. But accessing higher dimensions is still accessing something real. Dare I say, were this hypothesis proved true, it would largely destroy one of the last remaining remnants of the God of the Gaps? (I know we're not expressly talking about God here, but we are talking about spirit. And invariably, the spiritualists refers to spirit as God)

Why? Because from a philosophical point of view "God" or a "higher intelligence" is not/cannot be real? It makes me laugh a little here because the materialists demands evidence and if such evidence were provided then would damn the evidence as being evidence against the original hypothesis.


Danah Zohar did her post-grad work in philosophy, religion, and psychology. Calling her a physicist, in this context, is a little bit disengenous. But I can't find any information on her ideas about the mind so I will not comment on them; I can only find her work on "spiritual capital."

Danah Zohar, according to online references, also studied physics at MIT and the quote was related to physics- nothing disingenuous here.


Why don't we wait until the results of these types of experiments are conclusive, which as of yet, they are not.

That sounds like a creationist/ID argument against science. Nothing in science is really 100% conclusive at the cutting edge level. Working on that basis would undermine scientific enquiry- we would have no hypotheses, rule out any kind of role of intuition and not do much scientifically.


But again, even if there is slight evidence of quantum non-locality, there is absolutely no evidence that this is obtainable or useful at anything but the quantum level. Trying to tie it to consciousness is reaching at best.

Quantum mind and Quantum brain dynamics theories suggest that there is something going on that could link our biological selves with a quantum world in terms of consciousness.

"The proponents of QBD differ somewhat as to the exact way in which it produces consciousness. Jibu and Yasue think that the interaction between the energy quanta of the cortical field and the biomolecular waves of the neuronal network, particularly the dendritic part of the network, is what produces consciousness. On the other hand, Vitiello thinks that the quantum states involved in QBD produce two poles, a subjective representation of the external world and a self. This self opens itself to the representation of the external world. Consciousness is, in this theory, not in either the self or the external representation, but between the two in the opening of one to the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Quantum_brain_dynamics

However that was not the point. The point was that if particles can display a level of "consiousness" (hypothetically) perhaps we should re-evaluate what consciousness is in the first place.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's not really what she said though- that's how you have chosen to interpret her comment.

And what do you think was meant by " No, I would argue that you either know there is a higher reality or have no idea whatsoever - that is the nature of the enlightenment experience ."
It's an age old trick.



Consciousness is "not" stored and consciousness and memory are not identical. Someone who is "conscious" of themselves is aware of their own identity and even someone who is a victim of complete amnesia is still self-aware even if confused. The consciousness experiences the memory, i.e. the act of recall. The trouble with this is we get trapped in a swamp of differing paradigms and definitions- the fact is that we don't actually have a substantive definition of what consciousness actually is.
If consciousness is not stored, why do you remember who you are when you wake up in the morning?
The fact is that consciousness lies largely in the brain (it is suggested that your fingers know as much about your thoughts as your brain), and the brain is an electrical device. Without a working brain (or brain simulator in the case of future AI bots) there is no consciousness (as we define it. I tend to think plants are conscious, just not in the same way as brained animals are. You know, like how plants will "lean" towards a light source.). Consciousness is transmitted electrically. This is virtually undeniable.





This is a curious comment on many levels. The man was a Nobel prize winning neurolphysiologist who wrote on neurons and yet still maintained that there was something we couldn't just explain away with neurons alone. You say you won't "dignify" his ideas with the term hypothesis yet at the same time you aren't going to commit yourself to refuting his ideas... after basically trashing them beforehand. :confused:

Ya, that's fine. And Da Vinci was an alchemist. Appeals to authority do nothing to prove scientific phenomena.
I mean, have you read his 3 worlds idea? I won't refute it, as I have not the technical knowledge. Nor will I say it is untrue. I will say tho that he has no empirical evidence, and most likely cannot have it, on which to base his ideas, and as such should not be dignified even with hypothesis status, let alone theory.


Let's remember that the brain cannot store either oxygen or oxygenated blood and despite being only about 2% of our body weight uses 20% of our oxygen supply. When starved of oxygen brain death will begin to occur at about three to maximum six minutes unless CPR is initiated.
Ya, but again you can go up to 5 minutes before any major brain damage is manifested. "Begin to happen" is not the same as "happened." And again, a hardline materialist approach would require brain starvation to vegetableness, not partial brain loss.



Here's some stats from the Netherlands
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

There are plenty of case histories out there- I am not going to vouch for them as some may well be frauds, hallucinations and such but there still remains a core of documented cases that seem inexplicable. You read through the cases and sort the sheep from the goats.

Interesting paper. But let us say I have an NDE and describe the room I was in when I died, see a light, am greeted by dead relatives, etc. That proves the spirit world, how? All it proves is that my brain thought (whether it happened or not) it experienced an afterlife.


That consciousness is evidenced by electrical activity is not the same as consciousness being due to electrival activity.
And I never said it was.



Why? Because from a philosophical point of view "God" or a "higher intelligence" is not real? It makes me laugh a little here because the materialists demands evidence and if such evidence were provided then would damn the evidence as being evidence against the original hypothesis.
Well, since the original hypothesis (if you can even call it that) is incomprehensible... If we know how it happens, it is not incomprehensible.
I am fine with the idea of God as everything. But saying "there are things, therefore there is a G-d (remember that was the original assertion)" I am not fine with.


Danah Zohar, according to online references, also studied physics at MIT and the quote was related to physics- nothing disingenuous here.
As an undergrad, she studied physics and philosophy. And since everywhere I look it says "she recieved her degree in MIT in physics and philosophy" it would seem to me she got from MIT a degree in the philosophy of physics not physics proper. Maybe I am wrong about that, I hate to assume.
And I have no problem with her, nor do I think that because she did not recieve a post-grad degree in physics that her theories are therefore refuted. But saying that her undergrad degree in (the philosophy of) physics gives credence to her arguments is a mere appeal to authority at best, and disengenous at worst. And the way you said "Danah Zohar (physicist) believes..." sure does point to disengenous, as she is not, nor ever has been a physicist.
Am I an anthropolgist because that's what my degree is in, even tho I have never done any work in anthropolgy?



That sounds like a creationist/ID argument against science. Nothing in science is really 100% conclusive at the cutting edge level. Working on that basis would undermine scientific enquiry- we would have no hypotheses, rule out any kind of role of intuition and not do much scientifically.

Come off it man. I never asked for 100% conclusivity (an impossiblity, as we can ever be sure that reality actually exists in the first place; cogito ergo sum and all that). But (and I am not surprised you don't know this, given your propensity for citing things you didn't read, etc) there is not a physicist in the world, that I am aware of, that would call the EPR experiments conclusive. They are still highly contested experiments. And that is good.




Quantum mind and Quantum brain dynamics theories suggest that there is something going on.

"The proponents of QBD differ somewhat as to the exact way in which it produces consciousness. Jibu and Yasue think that the interaction between the energy quanta of the cortical field and the biomolecular waves of the neuronal network, particularly the dendritic part of the network, is what produces consciousness. On the other hand, Vitiello thinks that the quantum states involved in QBD produce two poles, a subjective representation of the external world and a self. This self opens itself to the representation of the external world. Consciousness is, in this theory, not in either the self or the external representation, but between the two in the opening of one to the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Quantum_brain_dynamics

Ya. And Ancient Astronauts theorists think there is something going on between ancient humans and aliens. Funnily enough, I bet THEY have more empirical evidence to support their case than these guys :rolleyes:


Price's position does not necessarily imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness, but that quantum effects including superposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition) and entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entanglement) are insignificant.
An arguably more formidable opponent of quantum mind theories is the physicist, Max Tegmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark). Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function...
...So far, however, there has been no experimental confirmation of the ability of the features mentioned above to protect against decoherence.

imagine that :lol:

[ComradeMan]

If consciousness is not stored, why do you remember who you are when you wake up in the morning?

You're confusing the memory with the act of remembering.


The fact is that consciousness lies largely in the brain (it is suggested that your fingers know as much about your thoughts as your brain), and the brain is an electrical device. Without a working brain (or brain simulator in the case of future AI bots) there is no consciousness (as we define it. I tend to think plants are conscious, just not in the same way as brained animals are. You know, like how plants will "lean" towards a light source.). Consciousness is transmitted electrically. This is virtually undeniable.

There is no scientific consensus on what consciousness is. Consciousness is not necessarily the thought but the awareness of the thought. A crude example would be to ask "When you have a memory or a thought who is it that actually sees/hears the memory/thought?". The plant example is bad- it's part of phototropism and uses a mechanism in which the plant produces aurins which develop away on the darker side causing the plant's cells on that side to grow more quickly and expand causing the plant to bend towards the lighter side. Cleve Backster's experiments would be more interesting to discuss, although controversial.


Ya, that's fine. And Da Vinci was an alchemist. Appeals to authority do nothing to prove scientific phenomena.
I mean, have you read his 3 worlds idea? I won't refute it, as I have not the technical knowledge.

Will you learn what an appeal to authority is and isn't? It's not an appeal to authority (in fallacious terms) to cite a neurophysiologist when discussing neurology.


Nor will I say it is untrue. I will say tho that he has no empirical evidence, and most likely cannot have it, on which to base his ideas, and as such should not be dignified even with hypothesis status, let alone theory.

So despite having not enough technical knowledge and not committing yourself you won't open your mind to something and say there is no empirical evidence and most likely can't be... that just sounds like you have already decided beforehand. :rolleyes:


Ya, but again you can go up to 5 minutes before any major brain damage is manifested. "Begin to happen" is not the same as "happened." And again, a hardline materialist approach would require brain starvation to vegetableness, not partial brain loss.

No, clinical brain death is what's being talked about- there are differences which can occur when temperature is significantly lowered but this is not what usually happens. But we are discussing cases where people have been basically brain-dead and even if EEG doesn't detect the lowest levels of possible residual brain activity it's hardly likely that the persons involved could have had such lucid memories nor known some of the things they later reported. Even someone in a vegetative state is not 100% brain dead.


Ya, but again you can go up to 5 Interesting paper. But let us say I have an NDE and describe the room I was in when I died, see a light, am greeted by dead relatives, etc. That proves the spirit world, how? All it proves is that my brain thought (whether it happened or not) it experienced an afterlife.

But we weren't really interested in nor arguing about the "light at the end of the tunnel" stuff but rather how it could be possible for a person who was brain dead/inactive to have conscious memories of the during period if, and only if, conciousness is 100% tied to the neurological processes of the brain. I think even the most hardened materialist scientists/medical doctors out there would admit they still aren't 100% sure on these matters.



But saying that her undergrad degree in (the philosophy of) physics gives credence to her arguments is a mere appeal to authority at best, and disengenous at worst.

Except I didn't say that.... another strawman. :rolleyes:


But (and I am not surprised you don't know this, given your propensity for citing things you didn't read, etc) there is not a physicist in the world, that I am aware of, that would call the EPR experiments conclusive. They are still highly contested experiments. And that is good.

Keep the ad hominems please, given your propensity not actually discuss the sources but to attack them because you don't like what they might have to say or may change your outlook. :rolleyes:

Please could you outline the problems with the EPR experiments and which physcists have said they are not valid. By the way, I wasn't talking about the EPR experiments (Fry & Thompson 1976 ) but rather the Alain Aspect 1982 experiment- the "flipped photons".



Ya. And Ancient Astronauts theorists think there is something going on between ancient humans and aliens. Funnily enough, I bet THEY have more empirical evidence to support their case than these guys :rolleyes: imagine that :lol:

Yet again you actually fail to discuss the material but just attack the source with silly analogies. You were the one who stated in bold that there was absolutely no evidence and when presented with scientific material. There is no consensus and citing one doubt is not a counter-argument. Most scientific theories have opponents and/or differences of opinion within. The issue is with your stating things as absolutes which are far from absolutes.

[Sheepy]

Don't see why not.

[StoneFrog]

TBH there is no use arguing with RSWU, he doesn't discuss, he's just pulling you around in a circle. He is achieving this by not committing himself to an idea, but rather by not being "so presumptious", this in itself makes the point useless. Even at the foundations of science there are presumption, all theories there are presumptions.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're confusing the memory with the act of remembering.

Maybe. Would you elaborate?




There is no scientific consensus on what consciousness is. Consciousness is not necessarily the thought but the awareness of the thought. A crude example would be to ask "When you have a memory or a thought who is it that actually sees/hears the memory/thought?". The plant example is bad- it's part of phototropism and uses a mechanism in which the plant produces aurins which develop away on the darker side causing the plant's cells on that side to grow more quickly and expand causing the plant to bend towards the lighter side. Cleve Backster's experiments would be more interesting to discuss, although controversial.

As to the first part. I am not seeing how this ties in with what we are discussing. Again, care to elaborate?
To the second part, about the plants; I understand that (well, actually I didn't. But I guessed as much. What I was saying was that our definition of consciousness I sometiems find insufficient. I wonder how the plant even knows it needs sun, and think that it is some kind of "consciousness-ness" for lack of a better term. I am not implying it is conscious as we define it and thought I made it clear, as such.




Will you learn what an appeal to authority is and isn't? It's not an appeal to authority (in fallacious terms) to cite a neurophysiologist when discussing neurology.

Will YOU learn what a fallacy is, in general. It is not an ad hominem to call someone an idiot (unless you say they're idiotic therefore the idea is wrong). And it is a fallacy to cite an expert as if the fact that they are an expert proves their assertion.
I mean, this is common logic 101. But... you know religion's relationship with logic as well as I ;)




So despite having not enough technical knowledge and not committing yourself you won't open your mind to something and say there is no empirical evidence and most likely can't be... that just sounds like you have already decided beforehand. :rolleyes:

My mind is open to it, else I would have rejected it outright (like Creationism. Which, in fact, my mind is open to. If the evidence points to it, I will be forced to accept that conclusion. Good thing for me that is extremely unlikely.).
The only thing I have decided beforehand is that I support things that agree with the evidence, and of course that reality exists. I mean, are those not the 2 foundations of scientific rationality?




No, clinical brain death is what's being talked about- there are differences which can occur when temperature is significantly lowered but this is not what usually happens. But we are discussing cases where people have been basically brain-dead and even if EEG doesn't detect the lowest levels of possible residual brain activity it's hardly likely that the persons involved could have had such lucid memories nor known some of the things they later reported. Even someone in a vegetative state is not 100% brain dead.

No, I read the study. The majority of cases, the patient was clinically dead for less than 2mins, hardly long enough for partial brain loss, let alone for full. Only 14% reached NDE, and an even smaller amount reached a deep NDE.
And on the topic of vegetables not being 100% brain dead.. isn't that the point? As long as they have a brain, an electrical machine, they still have some kind of consciousness. My cousin's cousin drowned as a 1 year old, is brain dead and lives on machines, and still, according to them, still smiles and responds to some stimuli.



But we weren't really interested in nor arguing about the "light at the end of the tunnel" stuff but rather how it could be possible for a person who was brain dead/inactive to have conscious memories of the during period if, and only if, conciousness is 100% tied to the neurological processes of the brain. I think even the most hardened materialist scientists/medical doctors out there would admit they still aren't 100% sure on these matters.

Ever heard of the subconscious mind? Certain stroke victims who have gone blind, can still actually see with their mind's eye, but not their real eyes. Put a pencil in front of their blind eye and they can grab it, but not tell you where it was or what it looked like.
The actual conscious mind is only a small part of the actual mind.





Except I didn't say that.... another strawman. :rolleyes:

Except you did when you said "Danah Zohar (physicist) believes..." when she is not, nor ever has been a physicist. She was an undergraduate student of (the philosophy of physics?) physics and philosophy.
Your bringing her up is about as good a piece of evidence as if I said "Milton Freidman believes the mind..."



Keep the ad hominems please, given your propensity not actually discuss the sources but to attack them because you don't like what they might have to say or may change your outlook. :rolleyes:

Please. That's bs and you know it. I am more than willing to discuss the sources, as you have found out when I repeatedly point out to you that you apparently have not read them yourself (which I could only do if I actually read them :rolleyes:).


Please could you outline the problems with the EPR experiments and which physcists have said they are not valid. By the way, I wasn't talking about the EPR experiments (Fry & Thompson 1976 ) but rather the Alain Aspect 1982 experiment- the "flipped photons".

1) I never said anyone said they weren't valid. But they are not conclusive experiments. And this is not contreversial, as you would know if you actually read the wikipedia article YOU posted!!!!!!!!
2) "Experiments dealing with quantum non-locality, EPR paradox, Bell's theorem, or "spooky action at a distance" because they are all discussing basically the same thing.




Yet again you actually fail to discuss the material but just attack the source with silly analogies.
Yes, I attack the source with analogies. It's called reductio ad absurdum. You have a problem with it? Take it up with your argumentative ethics professor.
But I take offense to your claim that I "fail to discuss the material" as I read it, and you don't.

You were the one who stated in bold that there was absolutely no evidence and when presented with scientific material. There is no consensus and citing one doubt is not a counter-argument.
What you consider scientific material is dubious. Is "A Brief History of Time" scientific material?
Citing one doubt IS a counter-argument when that doubt is "as of yet there is no experimental evidence to confirm this theory."
Anyone can make a hypothesis, and scientists can make good ones. But when there is no experimental evidence to support a theory, it remains solidly within the confines of "not (yet) science." Think String Theory for example. A good hypothesis. No evidence. Not science.



Most scientific theories have opponents and/or differences of opinion within. The issue is with your stating things as absolutes which are far from absolutes.

Yes, they do. And that is good. But it is absolute that there is no experimental evidence to suggest that QNL can be accessed by anything but quantum phenomena, that QM can effect the mind, nor that the brain has the mechanisms in place to stop decoherence. Again, I implore you to actually read the things you link. I have learned a lot from them :thumbup1:


TBH there is no use arguing with RSWU, he doesn't discuss, he's just pulling you around in a circle. He is achieving this by not committing himself to an idea, but rather by not being "so presumptious", this in itself makes the point useless. Even at the foundations of science there are presumption, all theories there are presumptions.
You're stupid. That's my response. And it is just as constructive as your comment.
Why don't we all just go around making all the unfounded assumptions we can? God lives in the Pleadies. Just because there is no evidence to support it, doesn't mean it's not true. All science makes assumptions, am I right?
If you can offer experimental and/or empirical evidence, I will take your theory seriously. If you can't, don't claim it as science. You're only holding things back.

[ComradeMan]

Will YOU learn what a fallacy is, in general. It is not an ad hominem to call someone an idiot (unless you say they're idiotic therefore the idea is wrong).
Splitting hairs now- your ad hominem's, like most people's are designed to attack the argument through the poster/speaker. If you call someone an idiot you imply what they are saying is idiotic and even if that's not what you intend to do it's generally not good debating stile.

And it is a fallacy to cite an expert as if the fact that they are an expert proves their assertion.
Except who said that Eccles or any of the others must be right because of their neurology/physics backgrounds? Building up strawmen is also a fallacy.....:rolleyes: Sorry, but it is not unreasonable when presenting information from people with regard to a certain field to highlight what their connection to that field is. You just can't stand it when someone dares to name an authority on a subject- that is not a fallacy.

I mean, this is common logic 101. But... you know religion's relationship with logic as well as I ;)
No I don't. Care to explain? In the West it was thanks to Christian and Islamic scholars that Aristotelian logic was continued and developed. Indian logic dates right back to the ontological discussions found in the Rig Veda.

The only thing I have decided beforehand is that I support things that agree with the evidence, and of course that reality exists. I mean, are those not the 2 foundations of scientific rationality?
Except you often seem to pick and choose which evidence you like. :crying:

No, I read the study. The majority of cases, the patient was clinically dead for less than 2mins, hardly long enough for partial brain loss, let alone for full. Only 14% reached NDE, and an even smaller amount reached a deep NDE.
That was one study but you seem to be missing the point- clinically brain dead means that- your brain isn't working, so how do you explain phenomena that you claim are intrinsically linked to brain function in the absence of that function? There are other cases of much longer periods that go into the "anomaly" i.e. totally inexplicable category. "Consciousness" is usually, according to accepted theory, lost about 15-20 seconds or so after the full deprivation of oxygen. The fact that only 14% and fewer reached an NDE/deep NDE does not invalidate that 14% or so. You can't just throw out 14% of the cases because the other 96% don't manifest what you're looking for.

And on the topic of vegetables not being 100% brain dead.. isn't that the point? As long as they have a brain, an electrical machine, they still have some kind of consciousness. My cousin's cousin drowned as a 1 year old, is brain dead and lives on machines, and still, according to them, still smiles and responds to some stimuli.
The term is vegetative state, not vegetable. I feel sad about your relative and uncomfortable discussing this example, however the if the brain is dead then there is no explanation for consciousness functions- the idea of being only 1% or whatever brain alive does not fit in with the conventional wisdom that thought is a global process.

Ever heard of the subconscious mind? Certain stroke victims who have gone blind, can still actually see with their mind's eye, but not their real eyes. Put a pencil in front of their blind eye and they can grab it, but not tell you where it was or what it looked like. The actual conscious mind is only a small part of the actual mind.
Ever heard of the Easy Problem and the Hard Problem in consciousness studies? The Hard Problem is the one that we are really dealing with here and there is no clear explanation. You also touch in the issue of blind-sight which is still a bit of a medical conundrum.

Except you did when you said "Danah Zohar (physicist) believes..." when she is not, nor ever has been a physicist. She was an undergraduate student of (the philosophy of physics?) physics and philosophy.Your bringing her up is about as good a piece of evidence as if I said "Milton Freidman believes the mind..."
Pitiful attempt here. I also put in brackets the other ones too, especially seeing as some of the names might not be so well known as say Einstein, Planck or Bohm etc. I would suggest that you check up on what this person actually studied, seeing as you don't know what she did but still feel confident enough to say what she didn't. :rolleyes: The Wikipedia entry on her names her as a physicist and also that she studied Physics and Philosophy at MIT as does her own website. It's interesting that you are trying to pick at someone's theories because of their academic background, whilst complaining of the fallacy of appeals to authority at the same time. So let's see, if someone is a physicist/neurophysiologist etc and they are cited it's an appeal to authority but if some is (maybe) not a physicist you are alleging that their opinion is in no way valid because they are not (perhaps) a physicist? :rolleyes:

Please. That's bs and you know it. I am more than willing to discuss the sources, as you have found out when I repeatedly point out to you that you apparently have not read them yourself (which I could only do if I actually read them :rolleyes:).
Blah, blah, blah, "you haven't read the sources"- give us a break. Of course I have and I unlike others I don't just post sources cherry-picked to back up my own arguments, but whatever the case you aren't actually presenting an argument here- the sources' information is independent of my having read them or not, unless there is some quantum operation here we don't understand connected to reading. :laugh:

1) I never said anyone said they weren't valid. But they are not conclusive experiments. And this is not contreversial, as you would know if you actually read the wikipedia article YOU posted!!!!!!!!
:laugh: You must think people were born yesterday. Your tone, the subtle and indirect way you trash things and give these non-comittal inconclusive statements without saying why etc etc etc. You were the one who made bold claims about absolutely no evidence existing to suggest otherwise and when presented with some evidence, that was not an attempt to prove anything, all you focus on is the opinion of one scholar who has the nearest opinion to your ideas. ;)

2) "Experiments dealing with quantum non-locality, EPR paradox, Bell's theorem, or "spooky action at a distance" because they are all discussing basically the same thing.
Yeah, if you only want to have a basic argument. But if you actually read the thread you'd have noticed I mentioned Bell's theorem and Alain Aspect's experiments..... ooops :blushing: Seems like the accusation of not reading things properly has come back on you.... bam-baam-baaaam.

Yes, I attack the source with analogies. It's called reductio ad absurdum. You have a problem with it? Take it up with your argumentative ethics professor.But I take offense to your claim that I "fail to discuss the material" as I read it, and you don't.
Err... sorry but that's not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is when you take up the argument and follow it through to logical consequences that may lead to an absurd conclusion. Attacking a source (i.e. not discussing or debating it) with trite analogies is not the same thing. I'd ask your argumentative ethics professor to explain reduction ad absurdum to you, unless he/she is in too much of a bad mood being argumentative about ethics.
As for the rest of your argument when you start calling people stupid and insulting people because they don't agree with your seemingly condescending attitude in certain fields and your wanton abuse of "fallacy" arguments all the time- a fallacy in itself I may add, it doesn't make for a good discussion. You never actually discuss the material, you just look for someone who may disagree and make your own "appeal to authority". :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Splitting hairs now- your ad hominem's, like most people's are designed to attack the argument through the poster/speaker. If you call someone an idiot you imply what they are saying is idiotic and even if that's not what you intend to do it's generally not good debating stile.
At best it is poisoning the well. In reality it's just using language that people not secure in themselves get bent out of shape about.



Except who said that Eccles or any of the others must be right because of their neurology/physics backgrounds? Building up strawmen is also a fallacy.....:rolleyes: Sorry, but it is not unreasonable when presenting information from people with regard to a certain field to highlight what their connection to that field is. You just can't stand it when someone dares to name an authority on a subject- that is not a fallacy.

You: My position is that the mind is seperate from the brain (to sum it up). John Eccles, a biologist, thinks mind is somethng seperate from the brain.
You could have said Micheal Vick believe X about the mind, and it would have the same impact. You are appealing to the authority of Eccles as a neurologist in order to give credence to your position. That is an appeal to authority. It doesn't mean your position is wrong. It means that your throwing out of Eccles is meaningless.



Except you often seem to pick and choose which evidence you like. :crying:

Booo! Quit lying.


That was one study but you seem to be missing the point- clinically brain dead means that- your brain isn't working, so how do you explain phenomena that you claim are intrinsically linked to brain function in the absence of that function?
They weren't clincially brain dead. Wtf are you talking about? THey were clinically dead, which is completely different.

There are other cases of much longer periods that go into the "anomaly" i.e. totally inexplicable category.
And if you would like to provide them, I will look at it. As of yet, it seems you should spend more time on the first study you linked, because I'm not sure you understand it.


"Consciousness" is usually, according to accepted theory, lost about 15-20 seconds or so after the full deprivation of oxygen. The fact that only 14% and fewer reached an NDE/deep NDE does not invalidate that 14% or so. You can't just throw out 14% of the cases because the other 96% don't manifest what you're looking for.

I never said you should.


The term is vegetative state, not vegetable.
Semantics.


I feel sad about your relative and uncomfortable discussing this example, however the if the brain is dead then there is no explanation for consciousness functions- the idea of being only 1% or whatever brain alive does not fit in with the conventional wisdom that thought is a global process.

He still has a brain... even 1% is all that is accessible he can stil use that 1% globally. True or false, there has ever been a case of a literally brainless person living, moving, talking, or especially thinking?


Ever heard of the Easy Problem and the Hard Problem in consciousness studies? The Hard Problem is the one that we are really dealing with here and there is no clear explanation. You also touch in the issue of blind-sight which is still a bit of a medical conundrum.

No, I haven't. Care to enlighten me?

Pitiful attempt here. I also put in brackets the other ones too, especially seeing as some of the names might not be so well known as say Einstein, Planck or Bohm etc.
And it was just as fallacious then.

I would suggest that you check up on what this person actually studied, seeing as you don't know what she did but still feel confident enough to say what she didn't. :rolleyes: The Wikipedia entry on her names her as a physicist and also that she studied Physics and Philosophy at MIT as does her own website. It's interesting that you are trying to pick at someone's theories because of their academic background,
No, Im not. Im picking at your use of her to support your position.


whilst complaining of the fallacy of appeals to authority at the same time. So let's see, if someone is a physicist/neurophysiologist etc and they are cited it's an appeal to authority but if some is (maybe) not a physicist you are alleging that their opinion is in no way valid because they are not (perhaps) a physicist? :rolleyes:

No I am alleging that she is not a physicist. And that, even were she a physicist, that still offers no support to your position.

Blah, blah, blah, "you haven't read the sources"- give us a break. Of course I have
I doubt it. There are always glaring things in what you link that you leave out. I feel you would have only left these things out if you didn't read it.
But I don't care. I'll take your word for it.

and I unlike others I don't just post sources cherry-picked to back up my own arguments,
Are you saying I do. Or is this just poisoning the well?

but whatever the case you aren't actually presenting an argument here-
Other than arguing that matter doesn't prove spirit, and consciousness cannot be untied from the brain, especially its capacity as an electrical machine...
No, Im not.

the sources' information is independent of my having read them or not, unless there is some quantum operation here we don't understand connected to reading. :laugh:
That's right, it is. That's why I read it, and then discuss it.

:laugh: You must think people were born yesterday. Your tone, the subtle and indirect way you trash things and give these non-comittal inconclusive statements without saying why etc etc etc.
Aww, does it hurt your feelings? :crying: Im torn up about it, really I am.

You were the one who made bold claims about absolutely no evidence existing to suggest otherwise
And I stand by that position. There is no experimental evidence to back up the quantum mind.

and when presented with some evidence,
If you think "X has Y hypothesis" is evidence, you are sorely mistaken.

that was not an attempt to prove anything, all you focus on is the opinion of one scholar who has the nearest opinion to your ideas. ;)
Yeah, that's exactly what Im doing :rolleyes:


Yeah, if you only want to have a basic argument. But if you actually read the thread you'd have noticed I mentioned Bell's theorem and Alain Aspect's experiments..... ooops :blushing: Seems like the accusation of not reading things properly has come back on you.... bam-baam-baaaam.

What?! I discussed both of those, and am well read in the EPR paradox...

Err... sorry but that's not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is when you take up the argument and follow it through to logical consequences that may lead to an absurd conclusion.
Ya, like drawing an analogy to show how ridiculous a position is.
Attacking a source (i.e. not discussing or debating it) with trite analogies is not the same thing.
Actually I do discuss and debate it, so I don't who you are talking about here...? Yourself? Idk..

I'd ask your argumentative ethics professor to explain reduction ad absurdum to you, unless he/she is in too much of a bad mood being argumentative about ethics
:lol: Good one.

As for the rest of your argument when you start calling people stupid and insulting people because they don't agree with your seemingly condescending attitude in certain fields and your wanton abuse of "fallacy" arguments all the time- a fallacy in itself I may add, it doesn't make for a good discussion. You never actually discuss the material, you just look for someone who may disagree and make your own "appeal to authority". :lol:
I really don't think I was that insulting in this particular thread. I don't recall calling anyone stupid (except Dzervhsiezinsky or whatever, but I only did it to show that "youre stupid" was as constructive as his post. Im sorry bro, you're not really stupid :lol:).
You're right, pointing out someones fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong, it means they are fallacious in their reasoning.
I do discuss the material, and it is insultingly decietful for you to suggest otherwise.:sneaky:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Indeed there are but there's still a lot of stuff that defies explanation.

Apart from OBEs during near-death experiences?


That still doesn't explain people who were clinically brain-dead being able to explain in some detail what was going on whilst they were brain dead.

Well, that would be something worth investigating. But considering that we only hear of these things from people who survive, I don't see how that means consciousness doesn't have a biological basis.


You're assuming of course that consciousness is a purely biological phenomenon. We don't know anything for sure. But the comments about quantum were intended to move the discourse along. Perhaps it is our brains that are designed to tune into concsiousness like an antenna? Who knows?

On what basis can we assume that intelligence is something that can be "tuned into"? Why not go with what the evidence tells us, which is that consciousness cannot survive the destruction of the brain?


Who knows? But there's still a lot of stuff that has not yet been determined and the original point was that it was unfair of RSWU to attack Astarte based on hard-scientific fact that turns out to be less than hard scientific fact.

Astarte made reference to unevidenced human concepts, and as such positing them in an attempt to fill in the gaps in our knowledge is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

[Astarte]

Astarte made reference to unevidenced human concepts, and as such positing them in an attempt to fill in the gaps in our knowledge is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

Unevidenced human concepts...? :confused: just read some Gnosticism or Hermeticism ... The whole point is the the Monad, or the ultimate creator of both the metaphysical and physical worlds cannot be physically known, and can only be known subjectively through "Mind". The original question was in regards to Pantheism, so I offered my opinion of what a Pantheist theological view-point may argue.

I could offer up tons of esoteric, gnostic, hermetic, alchemical, etc texts describing these kinds of interpretations of the universe - i.e. matter being spawned from god, god being inherent in matter, the matter world being a prison house of "spirit", even "atoms" causing both matter and god, etc... There are tons of different esoteric ways of looking at the physical world - I wasn't asking anyone to think like me, or trying to even convince them of the pantheist theological viewpoint I offered up. It just seems like a big hula-ba-loo over nothing to me...

[Revolution starts with U]

Respectfully Astarte, if you would like to avoid future hullaballoos I would suggest being more careful with your words and not presenting your opinion as fact (the fact that there is matter proves there is a god).
Language is a fickle servant, easily misunderstood.

[StoneFrog]

The fact that matter exists can be seen that it is divine or godlike, its like who created god if god created all? The fact that matter exists can be seen as symbol of its divinity, not that matter exists so there must of been a god to create it.

[ComradeMan]

At best it is poisoning the well. In reality it's just using language that people not secure in themselves get bent out of shape about.
Which is a fallacy.

You: My position is that the mind is seperate from the brain (to sum it up). John Eccles, a biologist, thinks mind is somethng seperate from the brain.
Correction- neurophysiologist and we were talking about neurology.

You could have said Micheal Vick believe X about the mind, and it would have the same impact. You are appealing to the authority of Eccles as a neurologist in order to give credence to your position. That is an appeal to authority. It doesn't mean your position is wrong. It means that your throwing out of Eccles is meaningless.
Nonsense. It's not unreasonable to cite someone's expertise in a field when discussing that field- it's only an appeal to authority if you make a bold claim that they must be right. The appeal to authority per se is not fallacious if the authority is indeed an authority on the subject being discussed. It becomes fallacious when an appeal to authority is made to a person who is not an authority on that subject- i.e. the appeal to inappropriate authority!

Booo! Quit lying.
Whatever.... grow up.

They weren't clincially brain dead. Wtf are you talking about? THey were clinically dead, which is completely different.
Clinical death is the cessation of (oxygenated) blood circulation which implies the onset of brain death within about 3 minutes- loss of brain function is amost immediate.

Semantics.
No- it's actually considered a little offensive to use that outdated term.

He still has a brain... even 1% is all that is accessible he can stil use that 1% globally. True or false, there has ever been a case of a literally brainless person living, moving, talking, or especially thinking?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html

No, I haven't. Care to enlighten me?
See- cited article.

And it was just as fallacious then.You don't understand what constitutes your favourite fallacy it seems.

No, Im not. Im picking at your use of her to support your position.I'm not using her to support "my" position, I was pointing out that your attack was not so sound.
No I am alleging that she is not a physicist. And that, even were she a physicist, that still offers no support to your position.
Backtracking.....

I doubt it. There are always glaring things in what you link that you leave out. I feel you would have only left these things out if you didn't read it. But I don't care. I'll take your word for it.
Err.... most of the time I just link an article that discusses the matter, I don't say this article shows 100% without any doubt that x=y!!! What do you want people to do- paste pages and pages of material?

Other than arguing that matter doesn't prove spirit, and consciousness cannot be untied from the brain, especially its capacity as an electrical machine...
If we conveniently ignore the other stuff.... ;) No one is denying a link between the human brain and consciousness but what they are suggesting is that might not be all of it and as of yet we don't really know for sure.

Ya, like drawing an analogy to show how ridiculous a position is. Actually I do discuss and debate it, so I don't who you are talking about here...? Yourself? Idk..
It's not reductio ad absurdum. :rolleyes:

I do discuss the material, and it is insultingly decietful for you to suggest otherwise.:sneaky:

Aww, does it hurt your feelings? :crying: Im torn up about it, really I am.If you call saying things are bs. or just saying you don't believe it and then providing limited sources loosely connected to your idea discussing things.... well.....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Unevidenced human concepts...? :confused: just read some Gnosticism or Hermeticism ...

They're both a load of mystical crap. Why should anyone take that shit seriously?


The whole point is the the Monad, or the ultimate creator of both the metaphysical and physical worlds cannot be physically known, and can only be known subjectively through "Mind".

I submit that subjective "knowledge" is not knowledge at all, since it tells you nothing about the universe that you didn't "know" already.


The original question was in regards to Pantheism, so I offered my opinion of what a Pantheist theological view-point may argue.

If Pantheism can be fairly summed up as "God is the universe", then what relevance the mysticism? If God and the universe are synonymous, then God can be known through scientific investigation.


I could offer up tons of esoteric, gnostic, hermetic, alchemical, etc texts describing these kinds of interpretations of the universe - i.e. matter being spawned from god, god being inherent in matter, the matter world being a prison house of "spirit", even "atoms" causing both matter and god, etc... There are tons of different esoteric ways of looking at the physical world - I wasn't asking anyone to think like me, or trying to even convince them of the pantheist theological viewpoint I offered up. It just seems like a big hula-ba-loo over nothing to me...

Well, without evidence that kind of obscurantist mysticism is worse than useless, because it lacks the self-correction mechanisms of scientific enquiry.

Ever wonder why alchemy failed and why chemistry is a roaring success?

[ComradeMan]

They're both a load of mystical crap. Why should anyone take that shit seriously?

What are they about and why do you say they are a load of mystical crap?


Ever wonder why alchemy failed and why chemistry is a roaring success?

Modern chemistry grew out of alchemy- in fact due to the successes and failures of Medieval (and onwards) alchemists modern chemistry emerged in the West in the 17th century. :rolleyes:

I suppose in light of today's news you'll be burning your physics books lol and denouncing it all as metaphysical crap. :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What are they about and why do you say they are a load of mystical crap?

It's codified magical thinking. If concepts such as the Demiurge and the Absolute and all that rot are anything more than the feverish ravings of medieval mendicants, then surely there's got to be something more solid than piles of dusty old parchment?

If there's an evil god somewhere in the universe, why don't the Gnostics direct every ounce of their intellectual strength towards finding and destroying this creature?


Modern chemistry grew out of alchemy- in fact due to the successes and failures of Medieval (and onwards) alchemists modern chemistry emerged in the West in the 17th century. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Alchemy stripped of its mystical nonsense and applied with a skeptical approach has become chemistry, which is a field that is both true and useful. So why even bother looking at alchemy except out of historical interest, or if one is looking for artistic inspiration?


I suppose in light of today's news you'll be burning your physics books lol and denouncing it all as metaphysical crap. :D

Just because I think something is crap doesn't mean I want it burned, good grief.

And no, the apparent faster than light effect observed recently is not yet cause to re-write the textbooks. That's the whole point of science, by the way, as opposed to mysticism; taking the time to confirm the data rather than rushing off with whatever feels most appealling.

[Revolution starts with U]

Which is a fallacy.

Again, at best it is poisoning the well, an informal fallacy. But it's not really. It's just using language that insecure people fear. Call me whatever name you want, I care not. Sticks and stones, my brother.



Correction- neurophysiologist and we were talking about neurology.

And? It's still appealing to the authority of some expert to support your case. You're not giving me his explanation/theory. You're just saying "X thinks Y which is close to what I think so my position may be right." You don't say why or how, you just assert it. It is a textbook appeal to authority.

Nonsense. It's not unreasonable to cite someone's expertise in a field when discussing that field- it's only an appeal to authority if you make a bold claim that they must be right.
See above. Saying "x kinda agrees with me, so my position has at least some merit" is an appeal to the authority of x.


The appeal to authority per se is not fallacious if the authority is indeed an authority on the subject being discussed. It becomes fallacious when an appeal to authority is made to a person who is not an authority on that subject- i.e. the appeal to inappropriate authority!

Thank you for proving you don't know what a fallacy is. :thumbup1:


Whatever.... grow up.

I would say the same to you. Grow up and stop lying about me.



Clinical death is the cessation of (oxygenated) blood circulation which implies the onset of brain death within about 3 minutes- loss of brain function is amost immediate.

Yes, and if you actually read the study you would see that most of the people did not even make it 3 mins into clinical death, not even 2mins.



No- it's actually considered a little offensive to use that outdated term.

If anybody is offended I apologize. But I would also recommend they grow up and stop worrying about the lables people put on them.



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html

Ya, and she still had parts of her brain, and they were studying her brain to find her consciousness! Do you even read this shit, or do you just severly lack reading comprehension skills?

See- cited article.
And?



Err.... most of the time I just link an article that discusses the matter, I don't say this article shows 100% without any doubt that x=y!!! What do you want people to do- paste pages and pages of material?

No, just read it and understand it before you post it. Because I will read it, and hopefully understand it. I know most people won't take the time to read it. But I will. So if you're going to do it in discussions with me, read it first.


If we conveniently ignore the other stuff.... ;) No one is denying a link between the human brain and consciousness but what they are suggesting is that might not be all of it and as of yet we don't really know for sure.

Ok. That's fine. But positing "spirit makes matter attract matter" does not help us in understanding how gravity works. And "spirit makes consciousness" does not explain consciousness. "God did it" is not a scientific proposal.



If you call saying things are bs. or just saying you don't believe it and then providing limited sources loosely connected to your idea discussing things.... well.....

Just please stop lying. It is clear that I actively engage in the material. I call it bs, and then I explain why I think it's bs. You may disagree with my conclusion, but it is insulting for you to suggest I am not engaging it.



I suppose in light of today's news you'll be burning your physics books lol and denouncing it all as metaphysical crap. :D
Actually that study doesn't really change the nature of GR that much, as the particles they did it with, likely have been going that fast since before the big bang. This study in no way suggests that normal matter can break the cosmic speed limit.

[Astarte]

The Alchemical process has also been applied by Jung and others to the process of psychological individuation - for whatever that is worth.

[Revolution starts with U]

The fact that matter exists can be seen that it is divine or godlike, its like who created god if god created all? The fact that matter exists can be seen as symbol of its divinity, not that matter exists so there must of been a god to create it.
Pim pom flooka looka wika wika pow!
That makes about as much sense.
Sure, you can say "matter is divine." But what does that mean?! It really just means you like matter. We don't need matter to be divine to want to take care of our reality. All we need is to feel a connection to reality.

[ComradeMan]

Sure, you can say "matter is divine." But what does that mean?! It really just means you like matter. We don't need matter to be divine to want to take care of our reality. All we need is to feel a connection to reality.

Interestingly enough the word matter derives from the Latin materia itself from Latin mater, i.e. mother- considering that many ancient religions and spiritual systems had the concept of the divine mother/androgyne (mother/father) it's interesting to see how matter could be seen to be divine. This is similar to some ideas in Shaivite Hinduism, centred on Shiva from whom all things come. Shiva is also know to be portrayed as male and female.

Define reality.... :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

It's codified magical thinking. If concepts such as the Demiurge and the Absolute and all that rot are anything more than the feverish ravings of medieval mendicants, then surely there's got to be something more solid than piles of dusty old parchment?

Medieval? :laugh: Could you actually discuss things without writing them off with a string of expletives.


If there's an evil god somewhere in the universe, why don't the Gnostics direct every ounce of their intellectual strength towards finding and destroying this creature?

You.... just..... don't..... get it...... :rolleyes:


Exactly. Alchemy stripped of its mystical nonsense and applied with a skeptical approach has become chemistry, which is a field that is both true and useful. So why even bother looking at alchemy except out of historical interest, or if one is looking for artistic inspiration?

Alchemy as I understood it had more than one level and the philosophical level was nothing to do with trying to turn lead into gold. Whatever you say though, you can't deny the value of the alchemists' work.


Just because I think something is crap doesn't mean I want it burned, good grief.

It was hyperbole....


And no, the apparent faster than light effect observed recently is not yet cause to re-write the textbooks. That's the whole point of science, by the way, as opposed to mysticism; taking the time to confirm the data rather than rushing off with whatever feels most appealling.

Well we'll have to wait to see.

[Revolution starts with U]

Again, that's fine with me. But it is not necessary (just to throw this in there, in case anyone thought otherwise. I DO see nothing wrong w being a pantheist, or any kind of theist, and a marxist/socialist. I may have problems w their theism, but nothing about it stops them from being able to believe in a G-d.). We can be good people merely through material means, spirit is not necessaryl.

Reality is the everyday occurences we all seem to experience, particularly the ones that are not dependant solely upon us (as opposed to dreams). Reality may well not exist, but it acts as if it does.

[ComradeMan]

We can be good people merely through material means, spirit is not necessaryl.
What is the objective and empirical materialistic definition of good and bad?

Reality is the everyday occurences we all seem to experience,.
Ah... it seems... so perhaps it's not all that it seems in which case it's rather subjective.

Reality may well not exist, but it acts as if it does.
There is nothing but confusion in this sentence.

[Revolution starts with U]

What is the objective and empirical materialistic definition of good and bad?

Are you tring to create a false dilemna between materialism and subjectiveness? Wtf?
The definiton of good is things I like. Bad is things I don't. That's the best we can hope for. A good society will create an objective ethical system (the law) through inter-subjective willpower.



Ah... it seems... so perhaps it's not all that it seems in which case it's rather subjective.

There is nothing but confusion in this sentence.

Why are you tring to create a false dilemna between materialism and subjectiveness?
Let me put it to you like this; I can imagine you bending to my will. But you probably won't. As much as I may think reality is catered to me, it is also catered to you. It is an intersubjective reality.
It may be a matrix-like computer program, or the spell of some demon, but it acts as if it is independant to the individual. When you die, reality is not going to just cease to exist for the rest of us.
Reality may not exist, but it acts as if it does.

[ComradeMan]

The definiton of good is things I like. Bad is things I don't. That's the best we can hope for. A good society will create an objective ethical system (the law) through inter-subjective willpower.

That's not a very good definition- it doesn't work. Would you say that radiotherapy is something someone likes despite the fact that it may cure them of a fatal illness? And anyway, your answer is not objective but completely subjective.

The problem with your objective ethical system would be that you would have to demonstrate this system to be objectively true- how would you do that? Inter-subjectivity is fine but what if the shared intuition/experience is a negative one? Also, could you define what would constitute a "good society"?


Why are you tring to create a false dilemna between materialism and subjectiveness? Let me put it to you like this; I can imagine you bending to my will. But you probably won't. As much as I may think reality is catered to me, it is also catered to you. It is an intersubjective reality.

Which is a compromise between an objective reality and a subjective reality- but it isn't an objective reality though is it?


It may be a matrix-like computer program, or the spell of some demon, but it acts as if it is independant to the individual. When you die, reality is not going to just cease to exist for the rest of us. Reality may not exist, but it acts as if it does.

Phenomenology..... :crying: The trouble with that is that the very concept of the "rest of you" from the subject's point-of-view is dependent on the subject which would have deceased.

It's curious that your debunking of a "mystic" position relies on metaphors and adjectives that are quite "mystic" sounding.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's not a very good definition- it doesn't work. Would you say that radiotherapy is something someone likes despite the fact that it may cure them of a fatal illness? And anyway, your answer is not objective but completely subjective.

Good and bad ARE completely subjective. I would say if the patient thinks radiotherapy is good, it is good... for them. Do you think Hitler thought he was a bad guy? Do you think all the NAZIs that followed him did? The only objectivity in ethics one could ever hope for is to come to an intersubjective consensus (the law). In nearly all previous civiliazations (note the word civilization, rather than society) that consensus has been decided by the privelaged minority.
A good society brings the widest range of consciousness together to create an intersubjective ethical system.

The problem with your objective ethical system would be that you would have to demonstrate this system to be objectively true- how would you do that?
It becomes objectively true when it manifests itself. I have found humans to be far too complex to try to impose a system upon them, without that experience degenerating into outright oppression. It would be best to just let them decide, and live and promote goodness as I see it.

Inter-subjectivity is fine but what if the shared intuition/experience is a negative one?
Negative is as real as positive. We must let go our attachments and expectations and achieve true freedom.


Also, could you define what would constitute a "good society"?

A congregation of well-intentioned individual wills acting out love unconditional.



Which is a compromise between an objective reality and a subjective reality- but it isn't an objective reality though is it?

Reality by its very nature is objective, no matter how subjective our "souls" or "wills" are.
Reality exists objectively, but we experience it subjectively. Without all of us, there would be all of us. Society is just an abstract expression of all these subjective wills.



Phenomenology..... :crying: The trouble with that is that the very concept of the "rest of you" from the subject's point-of-view is dependent on the subject which would have deceased.

Yes, that has basically been what I have been talking about. He will die and may think that's the end of existence. But I will watch him die, and continue living. Reality, whether it is or not, acts as if it is independant of any one individual observer.
Think GR (relativity). The position of an electron is dependant upon the act of observation. Now we could extrapolate from this, and many physicists do, that reality is not independant of observation. And they are correct, for what is reality without someone to experience it. The problem (or in my opinion, the good thing) is, when I observe it, and you observe it, we observe the same thing, physically (if not emotionally or rationally).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Alchemical process has also been applied by Jung and others to the process of psychological individuation - for whatever that is worth.

People are more than chemicals?

[Astarte]

People are more than chemicals?

The Alchemical process of the medieval practitioners was taken as a metaphor for the psychological individuation of the self.

Jung's two greatest works on Alchemy are Psychology and Alchemy and Mysterium Coniunctionis, the latter representing his final summing up of the implications of his long preoccupation with alchemy. In this last summary of his insights on the subject, influenced in part by his collaboration with the Nobel Prize winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli, the old Jung envisions a great psycho-physical mystery to which the alchemists of old gave the name of unus mundus (one world). At the root of all being, so he intimates, there is a state wherein physicality and spirituality meet in a transgressive union. Synchronistic phenomena, and many more as yet unexplained mysteries of physical and psychological nature, appear to proceed from this unitive condition. It is more than likely that this mysterious condition is the true home of the archetypes as such, which merely project themselves into the realm of the psyche, but in reality abide elsewhere. While the tensional relationship of the opposites remains the great operational mechanism of manifest life and of transformation, this relationship exists within the context of a unitary world-model wherein matter and spirit, King and Queen, appear as aspects of a psychoid realm of reality.

The ever-repeated charge of radical dualism leveled against Gnostics and their alchemical kin is thus reduced to a misunderstanding by this last, and perhaps greatest, insight of Jung. The workings of the cosmos, both physical and psychic, are characterized by duality, but this principle is relative to the underlying reality of the unus mundus. Dualism and monism are thus revealed not as mutually contradictory and exclusive but as complimentary aspects of reality. It is a curious paradox that this revolutionary insight, impressively portrayed by Jung in Mysterium Coniunctionis, has received relatively little attention from psychologists and metaphysicians alike.

Alchemical interest and perception permeate many of Jung's numerous writings in addition to those devoted primarily to the subject. His work Psychology and Religion: West and East, as well as numerous lectures delivered at the Eranos conferences, all utilize the alchemical model as a matrix for his teachings. Time and again he pointed out the affinities and contrasts between alchemical figures and those of Christianity, demonstrating a sort of mirror-like analogy not only between the stone of the philosophers and the image of Christ, but between alchemy and Christianity themselves. Alchemy, said Jung, stands in a compensatory relationship to mainstream Christianity, rather like a dream does to the conscious attitudes of the dreamer. The Stone of alchemy is in many respects the stone rejected by the builders of Christian culture, demanding recognition and reincorporation into the building itself.

It is here that some of the considerations outlined at the outset of our present study appear once more. Alchemy is not a phenomenon sui generis, but rather a phenomenon of attempted assimilation proceeding from Gnosticism - or at least so Jung believed. Even the chief sacrament of Christendom, the Holy Eucharist or Mass, was regarded by Jung as an alchemical work connected with a Third Century Gnostic alchemist Zosimos of Panopolis, in whom he placed the historical point of the convergence of Gnosticism and alchemy. (These considerations were explained by Jung in his Transformation Symbolism in the Mass, first published in the Eranos Yearbook 1944/45, and later included in Psychology and Western Religion, Princeton University Press, 1984.) Years later, one of Jung's academic associates, Prof. Gilles Quispel, came to coin a phrase reflecting Jung's point of view. "Alchemy," the Dutch scholar said, "is the Yoga of the Gnostics."

Perhaps one of the most significant contributions along these lines was given to us by Jung's singularly insightful disciple Marie-Louise von Franz, who devoted herself to the translation and explanation of a treatise first discovered by Jung entitled Aurora Consurgens and attributed to St Thomas Aquinas. This renowned saint, so the legend states, had a vision of the Sophia of God after meditating on the Song of Songs of Solomon and, following the command received in the vision, wrote this alchemical treatise. The Aurora differs from most other alchemical works inasmuch as its format is predominantly religious and filled with biblical references, and even more importantly, because it represents the alchemical opus as a process whereby the feminine wisdom Sophia must be liberated. Written in seven poetic but scholarly chapters, the treatise traces the liberation of Sophia from confinement by way of the alchemical phases of transformation.

It is thus through the agency of a brilliant woman disciple that the great project envisioned by Jung in 1912 came to a renewed emphasis. Led by the rediscovered words of the "angelic doctor" Aquinas, contemporary students of religion and psychology were confronted once again with the Gnostic task of alchemy. Published in German in 1957 and in English in 1966, Marie-Louise von Franz's work brought Jung's gnostic-alchemical vision in to full view once more. While at the individual level alchemy may assuredly be concerned with the redemption of the Lumen Naturae concealed in the psycho-physiological recesses of the human personality, the Aurora and also Jung's Answer to Job appear to point to a yet larger and more universal opus.

Crying from the depths of the chaos of this world, the wisdom-woman Sophia calls out to the alchemists of our age. Depth-psychology has indeed served as one of the principal avenues through which this redemptive project has been made known. The time may be approaching, and may in fact have come already, when potential alchemists in various disciplines and spiritual traditions may address themselves to this universal task of alchemical liberation. In 1950 Jung was greatly encouraged when Pope Pius XII used several manifestly alchemical allusions, such as "heavenly marriage", in Apostolic Constitution, "Munificentissimus Deus", the official document declaring the dogma of the assumption of the Virgin Mary, (the Catholic Sophia). In our time alchemy has come into its own, and beginning with the most recent two decades Gnosticism has begun its return journey also. The stone that the builders rejected is moving ever closer to the structure of Western culture.

In the garden of Jung's country home in Bollingen stands a large cube-shaped stone inscribed by his own hand with magical and alchemical symbols. In his last revelatory dream prior to his death, Jung saw a huge round stone engraved with the words "And this shall be a sign unto you of Wholeness and Oneness". Perhaps these signs of the wondrous stone of the great work will serve to remind the many whose lives and souls were touched by the Swiss Wizard, of the great work to be done, the great miracle to be accomplished. It is to be hoped that such an awakening of mindfulness will please Carl Gustav Jung in the far land to which he journeyed, and that it will assist those who are still in this sub-lunar world in their search for the quintessence, the stone of the philosophers and the supreme good.
http://www.gnosis.org/jung_alchemy.htm


EDIT: We are dealing with the psyche - there are other ways to alter the psyche besides chemistry.

[Revolution starts with U]

I actually find that one of the foundations of my personal philosophy. The unificication of dualism with monism; as above, so below, without all of us, there is no all of us. In this view the only thing that can ultimately change the world is individual will. Society is just an abstract reflection of such.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Medieval? :laugh: Could you actually discuss things without writing them off with a string of expletives.

Don't use my coarse style as an excuse to ignore arguments. Where is the evidence?


You.... just..... don't..... get it...... :rolleyes:

Humour me. What is true and useful about Gnosticism and/or Hermeticism?


Alchemy as I understood it had more than one level and the philosophical level was nothing to do with trying to turn lead into gold. Whatever you say though, you can't deny the value of the alchemists' work.

This is a genetic fallacy surely? Modern chemistry bears little resemblance to alchemy.


It was hyperbole....

Well we'll have to wait to see.

Hyperdrives are more likely than God. :p

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Alchemical process of the medieval practitioners was taken as a metaphor for the psychological individuation of the self.

Jung's two greatest works on Alchemy are Psychology and Alchemy and Mysterium Coniunctionis, the latter representing his final summing up of the implications of his long preoccupation with alchemy. In this last summary of his insights on the subject, influenced in part by his collaboration with the Nobel Prize winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli, the old Jung envisions a great psycho-physical mystery to which the alchemists of old gave the name of unus mundus (one world). At the root of all being, so he intimates, there is a state wherein physicality and spirituality meet in a transgressive union. Synchronistic phenomena, and many more as yet unexplained mysteries of physical and psychological nature, appear to proceed from this unitive condition. It is more than likely that this mysterious condition is the true home of the archetypes as such, which merely project themselves into the realm of the psyche, but in reality abide elsewhere. While the tensional relationship of the opposites remains the great operational mechanism of manifest life and of transformation, this relationship exists within the context of a unitary world-model wherein matter and spirit, King and Queen, appear as aspects of a psychoid realm of reality.

The ever-repeated charge of radical dualism leveled against Gnostics and their alchemical kin is thus reduced to a misunderstanding by this last, and perhaps greatest, insight of Jung. The workings of the cosmos, both physical and psychic, are characterized by duality, but this principle is relative to the underlying reality of the unus mundus. Dualism and monism are thus revealed not as mutually contradictory and exclusive but as complimentary aspects of reality. It is a curious paradox that this revolutionary insight, impressively portrayed by Jung in Mysterium Coniunctionis, has received relatively little attention from psychologists and metaphysicians alike.

Alchemical interest and perception permeate many of Jung's numerous writings in addition to those devoted primarily to the subject. His work Psychology and Religion: West and East, as well as numerous lectures delivered at the Eranos conferences, all utilize the alchemical model as a matrix for his teachings. Time and again he pointed out the affinities and contrasts between alchemical figures and those of Christianity, demonstrating a sort of mirror-like analogy not only between the stone of the philosophers and the image of Christ, but between alchemy and Christianity themselves. Alchemy, said Jung, stands in a compensatory relationship to mainstream Christianity, rather like a dream does to the conscious attitudes of the dreamer. The Stone of alchemy is in many respects the stone rejected by the builders of Christian culture, demanding recognition and reincorporation into the building itself.

It is here that some of the considerations outlined at the outset of our present study appear once more. Alchemy is not a phenomenon sui generis, but rather a phenomenon of attempted assimilation proceeding from Gnosticism - or at least so Jung believed. Even the chief sacrament of Christendom, the Holy Eucharist or Mass, was regarded by Jung as an alchemical work connected with a Third Century Gnostic alchemist Zosimos of Panopolis, in whom he placed the historical point of the convergence of Gnosticism and alchemy. (These considerations were explained by Jung in his Transformation Symbolism in the Mass, first published in the Eranos Yearbook 1944/45, and later included in Psychology and Western Religion, Princeton University Press, 1984.) Years later, one of Jung's academic associates, Prof. Gilles Quispel, came to coin a phrase reflecting Jung's point of view. "Alchemy," the Dutch scholar said, "is the Yoga of the Gnostics."

Perhaps one of the most significant contributions along these lines was given to us by Jung's singularly insightful disciple Marie-Louise von Franz, who devoted herself to the translation and explanation of a treatise first discovered by Jung entitled Aurora Consurgens and attributed to St Thomas Aquinas. This renowned saint, so the legend states, had a vision of the Sophia of God after meditating on the Song of Songs of Solomon and, following the command received in the vision, wrote this alchemical treatise. The Aurora differs from most other alchemical works inasmuch as its format is predominantly religious and filled with biblical references, and even more importantly, because it represents the alchemical opus as a process whereby the feminine wisdom Sophia must be liberated. Written in seven poetic but scholarly chapters, the treatise traces the liberation of Sophia from confinement by way of the alchemical phases of transformation.

It is thus through the agency of a brilliant woman disciple that the great project envisioned by Jung in 1912 came to a renewed emphasis. Led by the rediscovered words of the "angelic doctor" Aquinas, contemporary students of religion and psychology were confronted once again with the Gnostic task of alchemy. Published in German in 1957 and in English in 1966, Marie-Louise von Franz's work brought Jung's gnostic-alchemical vision in to full view once more. While at the individual level alchemy may assuredly be concerned with the redemption of the Lumen Naturae concealed in the psycho-physiological recesses of the human personality, the Aurora and also Jung's Answer to Job appear to point to a yet larger and more universal opus.

Crying from the depths of the chaos of this world, the wisdom-woman Sophia calls out to the alchemists of our age. Depth-psychology has indeed served as one of the principal avenues through which this redemptive project has been made known. The time may be approaching, and may in fact have come already, when potential alchemists in various disciplines and spiritual traditions may address themselves to this universal task of alchemical liberation. In 1950 Jung was greatly encouraged when Pope Pius XII used several manifestly alchemical allusions, such as "heavenly marriage", in Apostolic Constitution, "Munificentissimus Deus", the official document declaring the dogma of the assumption of the Virgin Mary, (the Catholic Sophia). In our time alchemy has come into its own, and beginning with the most recent two decades Gnosticism has begun its return journey also. The stone that the builders rejected is moving ever closer to the structure of Western culture.

In the garden of Jung's country home in Bollingen stands a large cube-shaped stone inscribed by his own hand with magical and alchemical symbols. In his last revelatory dream prior to his death, Jung saw a huge round stone engraved with the words "And this shall be a sign unto you of Wholeness and Oneness". Perhaps these signs of the wondrous stone of the great work will serve to remind the many whose lives and souls were touched by the Swiss Wizard, of the great work to be done, the great miracle to be accomplished. It is to be hoped that such an awakening of mindfulness will please Carl Gustav Jung in the far land to which he journeyed, and that it will assist those who are still in this sub-lunar world in their search for the quintessence, the stone of the philosophers and the supreme good.
http://www.gnosis.org/jung_alchemy.htm


EDIT: We are dealing with the psyche - there are other ways to alter the psyche besides chemistry.

It's a pretty poor metaphor though, isn't it? People's lives are far longer and more complicated than any alchemical rite or ritual. Speaking of which, I must ask, what does this stuff actually involve doing? What kind of confirmation does one get that one is doing it right?

[Revolution starts with U]

U generally just have to announce yourself enlightened and hope people believe you :lol:

[Astarte]

It's a pretty poor metaphor though, isn't it? People's lives are far longer and more complicated than any alchemical rite or ritual. Speaking of which, I must ask, what does this stuff actually involve doing? What kind of confirmation does one get that one is doing it right?

The thing with the alchemical process was that it was no dogmatic rite or ritual. The technique and descriptive wording used by the alchemists varied from writer to writer, but all unconsciously, or at least based on each others metaphors which they in turn kept elaborating and building on through the centuries resulted in the same essential idea of how to achieve the creation of the "philosopher's stone" from the "materia prima" - that is transmuting the base lead-like "materia prima" into the "gold" of the "philosopher's stone". The whole thing is a metaphor for the enlightenment process coming from varied roots; namely gnosticism, hermeticism, abrahamism, and astrology. The process of "transmuting lead to gold" as described metaphorically by the Alchemists can be compared to also Buddhist theologies on enlightenment and the process there of.

What it actually involves doing ... well, obviously no one is physically mixing up anything in cauldrons, or applying heat to stones to release radical moisture with the actual purpose of transmuting lead to gold. :rolleyes: The caludron, the heat, the stone, the "radical moisture" released, and the final "lapis" are all deeply in grained with many esoteric metaphors having to do with theological currents that have existed in the Western world for a long time prior to the medieval alchemists. Its a contemplative process with the goal of achieving deeper understandings of your "self" and your own reality; i.e. the individuation of the self. It means essentially confronting your "shadow" - that is, everything you suppress head on and honestly sorting through them all. The "key" is essentially the constant unification and repulsion of opposites, and there by that synthesis a third and higher "material" is formed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The thing with the alchemical process was that it was no dogmatic rite or ritual. The technique and descriptive wording used by the alchemists varied from writer to writer, but all unconsciously, or at least based on each others metaphors which they in turn kept elaborating and building on through the centuries resulted in the same essential idea of how to achieve the creation of the "philosopher's stone" from the "materia prima" - that is transmuting the base lead-like "materia prima" into the "gold" of the "philosopher's stone". The whole thing is a metaphor for the enlightenment process coming from varied roots; namely gnosticism, hermeticism, abrahamism, and astrology. The process of "transmuting lead to gold" as described metaphorically by the Alchemists can be compared to also Buddhist theologies on enlightenment and the process there of.

OK, so there isn't any actual transformation of lead into gold, it's a metaphor? Somehow I think the actual ability to turn base metals into precious ones would be far more useful. Although that's not something than can be achieved through purely chemical processes (we have turned elements into other elements using modern atomic science, but that involves working on nucleons which are generally unaffected by chemical reactions), so even as a metaphor it falls down.

Moving on from the dodgy metaphor, how do alchemists independantly confirm their writings and ideas as true and useful?

In a similar vein, how does one distinguish between a "real" alchemist and someone who's merely a well-read charlatan using the right kind of words?

In science this sort of thing is done by attempting to repeat experiments, or by observing phenomena independantly. In mathematics, one's working can be checked by any other mathematician.

But alchemy seems to lack such mechanisms for keeping its practitioners honest with themselves, let alone others.


What it actually involves doing ... well, obviously no one is physically mixing up anything in cauldrons, or applying heat to stones to release radical moisture with the actual purpose of transmuting lead to gold. :rolleyes: The caludron, the heat, the stone, the "radical moisture" released, and the final "lapis" are all deeply in grained with many esoteric metaphors having to do with theological currents that have existed in the Western world for a long time prior to the medieval alchemists. Its a contemplative process with the goal of achieving deeper understandings of your "self" and your own reality; i.e. the individuation of the self. It means essentially confronting your "shadow" - that is, everything you suppress head on and honestly sorting through them all. The "key" is essentially the constant unification and repulsion of opposites, and there by that synthesis a third and higher "material" is formed.

One can do contemplation without recourse to dodgy metaphors derived from ancient misunderstandings of chemical processes.

The problem with alchemy as I see it is that it's really easy to basically just lie to oneself - read the "right" texts, "get" the metaphors, contemplate them, and perhaps after many years one will feel more "enlightened" - but what has one actually achieved in meaningful terms?

Alchemists and their ilk, as far as I can tell, have no greater insight or knowledge into themselves or the universe than the rest of us. They may claim to do so, but without evidence such claims are worthless.

[ComradeMan]

Well first let's bear a few things in mind. As you go further back in time the boundaries between science-philosophy-mysticism get blurred. Let's not forget the Pythagoreans for example, most people today probably are familiar with the sum of the square of the opposite two sides is equal to the square on the hypoteneuse but how familiar are they with the mystical motivations and philosophies of the Pythagoreans?

The word "alchemy" itself has a long history and is connected to our modern word "chemistry" (from Med.Latin alchimicus) with a possible origin in ancient Egypt "Khem" or maybe from the Alexandrian Greeks "khymeia"- whatever the origin the "al" prefix derives from Arabic and we are dealing with an ancient tradition and the word has come down to us today from Arabic الكيمياء al-kimia.

The whole idea of turning base metals into gold as being "alchemy" only really arises as central theme in alchemy/chemistry in the 12th-13th centuries CE and thereafter with Magnus and Aquinas. We ought to be careful again though because in both the Christian West and the Islamic world there was not really much of a difference between an "alchemist" and a "chemist" and indeed some of the most famous "alchemists" were also the fathers of modern chemistry- for example the Persian Abu Musa Jabir Ibn-Hayyan (c721-815 CE).


OK, so there isn't any actual transformation of lead into gold, it's a metaphor?...so even as a metaphor it falls down.

It's philosophical and metaphors do not fall down. Gold as a metaphor is used in many ways that would fall down if you wanted to become anal about its application, for example "golden rays of sunshine", well, rays of sunshine are not really yellow/gold most of the time nor are they metallic etc etc etc :rolleyes:

Another thing you have missed is that in ancient times knowledge was guarded far more jealously for many reasons and very often with ancient "magical texts" and "alchemy" the words used, the "metaphors", were actually codes for other things so all of that nonsense about eyes of bats and tongues of frogs etc is basically a misunderstanding of an ancient code.

Remember that metals, planets, humours and so on were all associated and there was a theory that a lot of classical mythology was "encoded" as such- George Starkey saw a parallel in the "net" of Vulcan with the process of using iron to reduce stibnite at a high temperature to antimony and then combining it with copper.


Moving on from the dodgy [>because you say it is] metaphor, how do alchemists independantly confirm their writings and ideas as true and useful?

Well interestingly enough there was great debate betweent the early alchemists on such subjects as transmutation and in the Islamic world some believed this was impossible so the idea that all alchemists were without their equivalent of some kind of "peer review" is not backed up by history.


In a similar vein, how does one distinguish between a "real" alchemist and someone who's merely a well-read charlatan using the right kind of words?

How does one distinguish between serious science and pseudo-science? Plus the fact that we are now talking about philosophical alchemy and thus we are dealing with different magisteria. How does anyone verify dialectic materialism? :rolleyes:;)


In science this sort of thing is done by attempting to repeat experiments, or by observing phenomena independantly. In mathematics, one's working can be checked by any other mathematician.

Agreed but maths is maths and what we are talking about is different. The alchemists of old wrote down what worked and others attempted to replicate those things- if none of it had had any validity it would not have been continued for such a long time- moving into the more abstract philosophical real- well, can you verify existentialism, or logical positivism in an object sense?


But alchemy seems to lack such mechanisms for keeping its practitioners honest with themselves, let alone others.

See points above.


One can do contemplation without recourse to dodgy metaphors derived from ancient misunderstandings of chemical processes.

In other words you don't like the metaphors.


The problem with alchemy as I see it is that it's really easy to basically just lie to oneself - read the "right" texts, "get" the metaphors, contemplate them, and perhaps after many years one will feel more "enlightened" - but what has one actually achieved in meaningful terms?

How does one know that one is lying to one's self and what constitutes these lies? It's interesting that the Latin contemplatio and the Greek theoria are both derived from ancient ideas of divinity/spirituality.


Alchemists and their ilk, as far as I can tell, have no greater insight or knowledge into themselves or the universe than the rest of us. They may claim to do so, but without evidence such claims are worthless.

Well I think most people would have more insight or knowledge into themselves than others. When it comes to the universe that is I suppose a different matter but fundamentally we are talking about ways of seeing the world from a philosophical point of view.

What evidence would you consider worthy?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well first let's bear a few things in mind. As you go further back in time the boundaries between science-philosophy-mysticism get blurred. Let's not forget the Pythagoreans for example, most people today probably are familiar with the sum of the square of the opposite two sides is equal to the square on the hypoteneuse but how familiar are they with the mystical motivations and philosophies of the Pythagoreans?

Maybe the ancients did not delineate between science and mysticism, but we moderns most certainly do, and for good reasons.


The word "alchemy" itself has a long history and is connected to our modern word "chemistry" (from Med.Latin alchimicus) with a possible origin in ancient Egypt "Khem" or maybe from the Alexandrian Greeks "khymeia"- whatever the origin the "al" prefix derives from Arabic and we are dealing with an ancient tradition and the word has come down to us today from Arabic الكيمياء al-kimia.

OK, but that still doesn't change the fact that modern chemistry bears little resemblance to ancient alchemy.


The whole idea of turning base metals into gold as being "alchemy" only really arises as central theme in alchemy/chemistry in the 12th-13th centuries CE and thereafter with Magnus and Aquinas. We ought to be careful again though because in both the Christian West and the Islamic world there was not really much of a difference between an "alchemist" and a "chemist" and indeed some of the most famous "alchemists" were also the fathers of modern chemistry- for example the Persian Abu Musa Jabir Ibn-Hayyan (c721-815 CE).

Sure, but like with the Pythagoreans their contributions live on in chemistry because they could be independently verified.


It's philosophical and metaphors do not fall down. Gold as a metaphor is used in many ways that would fall down if you wanted to become anal about its application, for example "golden rays of sunshine", well, rays of sunshine are not really yellow/gold most of the time nor are they metallic etc etc etc :rolleyes:

"Golden rays of sunshine" is an artistic metaphor intended to convey something visual.

Ever wonder why metaphors are rarely used in science? Because metaphors are slippery and subjective. Describing rays of sunshine as "golden" does not convey an exact shade, but is an inexact analogy that is subject to interpretation.

That sort of thing is good enough for art, but fucking useless if you want to convey facts and data rather than flowery language.


Another thing you have missed is that in ancient times knowledge was guarded far more jealously for many reasons and very often with ancient "magical texts" and "alchemy" the words used, the "metaphors", were actually codes for other things so all of that nonsense about eyes of bats and tongues of frogs etc is basically a misunderstanding of an ancient code.

Since we live in a more enlightened era, what need is there to speak in code? Language should be clear and concise, especially when one is speaking of knowledge of potentially universal import.


Remember that metals, planets, humours and so on were all associated and there was a theory that a lot of classical mythology was "encoded" as such- George Starkey saw a parallel in the "net" of Vulcan with the process of using iron to reduce stibnite at a high temperature to antimony and then combining it with copper.

Yes, but now we know better. The human body isn't governed in any way by "four humours", planets have no effect on people's personalities or fates other than gravitational, and metals represent a specific arrangement of sub-parts unknown to the ancients (although at least one of them, going by the name of Democritus, hypothesised the existence of atoms).

Like I said, historical or artistic interest, but beyond that?


Well interestingly enough there was great debate betweent the early alchemists on such subjects as transmutation and in the Islamic world some believed this was impossible so the idea that all alchemists were without their equivalent of some kind of "peer review" is not backed up by history.

Peer review is not independant confirmation. I'm talking about results. Surely if alchemy is some kind of great insight into the development of the human psyche, there must be some evidence for that?


How does one distinguish between serious science and pseudo-science?

Pseudoscience isn't borne out by observation and experiment.


Plus the fact that we are now talking about philosophical alchemy and thus we are dealing with different magisteria. How does anyone verify dialectic materialism? :rolleyes:;)

"Non-overlapping magisteria" is ass-covering bullshit. Why should any field of knowledge declare itself exempt from the burden of evidence?


Agreed but maths is maths and what we are talking about is different.

The important thing is verification. How can one, at least in theory, tell if what an alchemist is saying is true and useful or not?


The alchemists of old wrote down what worked and others attempted to replicate those things- if none of it had had any validity it would not have been continued for such a long time- moving into the more abstract philosophical real- well, can you verify existentialism, or logical positivism in an object sense?

There's plenty of evidence that humans are perfectly capable of leading themselves down philosophical blind alleys, for centuries at a time. In fact until the development of modern science, human progress as to acquring true and useful knowledge about the world was glacially slow.


See points above.

In other words you don't like the metaphors.

I find them inadequate, and frightfully so. Humans are complex organisms living in a complex world, and even the powerful tools that modern science gifted us does not grant us access to some sacred or ultimate truth with regards to our species, beyond the fact that as hairless apes we're not as far removed from the other animals as we previously thought.

I'm doubtful of the applicability of alchemy, even for strictly "personal" ends, because the human capacity for self-deception is considerable. After all, millions of people are Scientologists apparently, despite the fact that it was entirely invented for making money, and this fact is documented and within living memory!


How does one know that one is lying to one's self and what constitutes these lies? It's interesting that the Latin contemplatio and the Greek theoria are both derived from ancient ideas of divinity/spirituality.

That's exactly the thing, one doesn't know. People tend to think that they are the lucky exception, rather than an unfortunate statistic. That is why external confirmation is so important. A lucky few people may have the will power and personal fortitude to be always forthright with themselves over important matters, but most people will need help. That's why old habits die hard.

This is all down to the fact that we are apes. There's no spark of divinity lodged within us, that's a fable we tell ourselves to make us feel special.


Well I think most people would have more insight or knowledge into themselves than others. When it comes to the universe that is I suppose a different matter but fundamentally we are talking about ways of seeing the world from a philosophical point of view.

What evidence would you consider worthy?

Well, if alchemy is true in any meaningful sense, if it "works" as a way of acquiring knowledge about the reality in which we find ourselves, then it's contributions should have continued on to the present day, rather than ending up as a historical curiosity. Its effectiveness would be undeniable to any reasonable observer, loads of countries across the globe would have alchemical institutions, and every government worth its salt would have a team of alchemical advisors on hand.

[Revolution starts with U]

Thats an ongoing debate amongst me and my circle of friends. They are very big fans of alchemy and enlightenment. And so am I. But I try to explain that we live in a new day and age. This is an age where we can subject enlightenment to the scientific method and empirically verify what enlightenment is, if it even exists, what its uses are, and how it can be achieved.
The need for personal development and overcoming goals (what modern alchemists refer to as magic [Have either of you even read Crowley?] is great, I agree. But, I just see no need for all the flowery language and imprecise metaphors. And I also see, due to enlightenment's subjective nature, far too many charlatans with all the frailties of everyone else, who have declared themselves enlightened and been believed.
It is time to move away from the age of "believe me becuase I said so (or God told me so)."

[Astarte]

Thats an ongoing debate amongst me and my circle of friends. They are very big fans of alchemy and enlightenment. And so am I. But I try to explain that we live in a new day and age. This is an age where we can subject enlightenment to the scientific method and empirically verify what enlightenment is, if it even exists, what its uses are, and how it can be achieved.
The need for personal development and overcoming goals (what modern alchemists refer to as magic [Have either of you even read Crowley?] is great, I agree. But, I just see no need for all the flowery language and imprecise metaphors. And I also see, due to enlightenment's subjective nature, far too many charlatans with all the frailties of everyone else, who have declared themselves enlightened and been believed.
It is time to move away from the age of "believe me becuase I said so (or God told me so)."

Why do you think they are imprecise metaphors? Have you ever read any of Carl Jung? I would take Crowley's (...Speaking of charlatans...:lol:) metaphor's to be much more juvenile and imprecise than the ones Carl Jung extracted from texts over the course of his career. Jung never claimed to have contacted an energy-being named "Aiwass" as Crowley did in his little "Book of the Law".

Carl Jung goes to great lengths actually to verify gnosis, which is based on the idea of the existence, in Jungian psychology, not necessarily as "God", but the collective unconsciousness. Please see at least pages 18-19 for the example of the "Sun's tail" and its relevance to the collective unconsciousness.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0W26oUIdwlQC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=jung+patient+sun's+tail&source=bl&ots=0usDr8e9NA&sig=08SFaoJIhhUx6U6aMRx6-MHraQ4&hl=en&ei=ad5_TreiHqTd0QGp7JQU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Revolution starts with U]

Why do you think they are imprecise metaphors?
Because, for the most part, they are. :D

Have you ever read any of Carl Jung?
I had read some as an undergrad. But that's it. I see you linked a book, and if it is Jung, I will for sure read it. Thanks :thumbup:


I would take Crowley's (...Speaking of charlatans...:lol:) metaphor's to be much more juvenile and imprecise than the ones Carl Jung extracted from texts over the course of his career. Jung never claimed to have contacted an energy-being named "Aiwass" as Crowley did in his little "Book of the Law".

Oh believe me :rolleyes: I know. But in alchemical circles of his time, he was a big deal. That's the point tho. What means of verification is there to distinguish the truth-worthiness of Crowley compared to Jung other than "I like that more?"


Carl Jung goes to great lengths actually to verify gnosis, which is based on the idea of the existence, in Jungian psychology, not necessarily as "God", but the collective unconsciousness. Please see at least pages 18-19 for the example of the "Sun's tail" and its relevance to the collective unconsciousness.

word

[Astarte]

And how do you get from A to B? You can't just say "a proves b" you have to make a causal chain. This is my problem with the new age movement; they try to couch spirituality in scientific language and only end up muddying both.
How does A logically lead to B? What evidence are you basing your definitions of A and B on? Nothing. It just sounds good, so it "proves it" to you.
(Waiting for insert of some vague appeal to authority)

Once again, there are many variations as to how "you get from A to B", how according to some esoteric theologies all matter exists because of the exists of a "Monad" - I don't see too much couching of theology in scientific language in these texts. And I feel like "pin the tail on the donkey" with all the talk of New Age, kind of like being put unfairly into a derogatory category.

You point out Crowley has an example of a systematic elaboration on the process of gnosis or enlightenment, yet you find problems with Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Alchemy and simply write them off as "New Age". A little odd as if you go into most mainstream corporate bookstores you will find a super abundance of Crowley on the shelves. I can't remember the last time I saw Asclepius, or Corpus Hermeticum, or even a good Jungian dissection of Gnosticism or Hermeticism.


The Perfect Sermon, or

The Asclepius

III

1. That, then, from which the whole Cosmos is formed, consisteth of Four Elements—Fire, Water, Earth, and Air; Cosmos [itself is] one, [its] Soul [is] one, and God is one.

Now lend to me the whole of thee,—all that thou can’st in mind, all that thou skill’st in penetration.

For that the Reason of Divinity may not be known except by an intention of the senses like to it.

’Tis likest to the torrent’s flood, down-dashing headlong from above with all-devouring tide; so that it comes about, that by the swiftness of its speed it is too quick for our attention, not only for the hearers, but also for the very teachers.

2. [II. M.] Heaven, then, God Sensible, is the director of all bodies; bodies’ increasings and decreasings are ruled by Sun and Moon.

But He who is the Ruler of the Heaven, and of its Soul as well, and of all things within the Cosmos,—He is God, who is the Maker of all things.

For from all those that have been said above, o’er which the same God rules, there floweth forth a flood of all things streaming through the Cosmos and the Soul, of every class and kind, throughout the Nature of [all] things.

The Cosmos hath, moreover, been prepared by God as the receptacle of forms of every kind.

Forth-thinking Nature by these kinds of things, He hath extended Cosmos unto Heaven by means of the Four Elements,—all to give pleasure to the eye of God.
http://hermetic.com/texts/hermetica/asclepius3.html


http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html
From the Apocryphon of John

And I asked to know it, and he said to me, "The Monad is a monarchy with nothing above it. It is he who exists as God and Father of everything, the invisible One who is above everything, who exists as incorruption, which is in the pure light into which no eye can look.

"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. He did not lack anything, that he might be completed by it; rather he is always completely perfect in light. He is illimitable, since there is no one prior to him to set limits to him. He is unsearchable, since there exists no one prior to him to examine him. He is immeasurable, since there was no one prior to him to measure him. He is invisible, since no one saw him. He is eternal, since he exists eternally. He is ineffable, since no one was able to comprehend him to speak about him. He is unnameable, since there is no one prior to him to give him a name.

"He is immeasurable light, which is pure, holy (and) immaculate. He is ineffable, being perfect in incorruptibility. (He is) not in perfection, nor in blessedness, nor in divinity, but he is far superior. He is not corporeal nor is he incorporeal. He is neither large nor is he small. There is no way to say, 'What is his quantity?' or, 'What is his quality?', for no one can know him. He is not someone among (other) beings, rather he is far superior. Not that he is (simply) superior, but his essence does not partake in the aeons nor in time. For he who partakes in an aeon was prepared beforehand. Time was not apportioned to him, since he does not receive anything from another, for it would be received on loan. For he who precedes someone does not lack, that he may receive from him. For rather, it is the latter that looks expectantly at him in his light.

"For the perfection is majestic. He is pure, immeasurable mind. He is an aeon-giving aeon. He is life-giving life. He is a blessedness-giving blessed one. He is knowledge-giving knowledge. He is goodness-giving goodness. He is mercy and redemption-giving mercy. He is grace-giving grace, not because he possesses it, but because he gives the immeasurable, incomprehensible light.

"How am I to speak with you about him? His aeon is indestructible, at rest and existing in silence, reposing (and) being prior to everything. For he is the head of all the aeons, and it is he who gives them strength in his goodness. For we know not the ineffable things, and we do not understand what is immeasurable, except for him who came forth from him, namely (from) the Father. For it is he who told it to us alone. For it is he who looks at himself in his light which surrounds him, namely the spring of the water of life. And it is he who gives to all the aeons and in every way, (and) who gazes upon his image which he sees in the spring of the Spirit. It is he who puts his desire in his water-light which is in the spring of the pure light-water which surrounds him.

"And his thought performed a deed and she came forth, namely she who had appeared before him in the shine of his light. This is the first power which was before all of them (and) which came forth from his mind, She is the forethought of the All - her light shines like his light - the perfect power which is the image of the invisible, virginal Spirit who is perfect. The first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory in the aeons, the glory of the revelation, she glorified the virginal Spirit and it was she who praised him, because thanks to him she had come forth. This is the first thought, his image; she became the womb of everything, for it is she who is prior to them all, the Mother-Father, the first man, the holy Spirit, the thrice-male, the thrice-powerful, the thrice-named androgynous one, and the eternal aeon among the invisible ones, and the first to come forth.

"<She> requested from the invisible, virginal Spirit - that is Barbelo - to give her foreknowledge. And the Spirit consented. And when he had consented, the foreknowledge came forth, and it stood by the forethought; it originates from the thought of the invisible, virginal Spirit. It glorified him and his perfect power, Barbelo, for it was for her sake that it had come into being.

"And she requested again to grant her indestructibility, and he consented. When he had consented, indestructibility came forth, and it stood by the thought and the foreknowledge. It glorified the invisible One and Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being.

"And Barbelo requested to grant her eternal life. And the invisible Spirit consented. And when he had consented, eternal life came forth, and they attended and glorified the invisible Spirit and Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being.

"And she requested again to grant her truth. And the invisible Spirit consented. And when he had consented, truth came forth, and they attended and glorified the invisible, excellent Spirit and his Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being.

"This is the pentad of the aeons of the Father, which is the first man, the image of the invisible Spirit; it is the forethought, which Barbelo, and the thought, and the foreknowledge, and the indestructibility, and the eternal life, and the truth. This is the androgynous pentad of the aeons, which is the decad of the aeons, which is the Father.

"And he looked at Barbelo with the pure light which surrounds the invisible Spirit, and (with) his spark, and she conceived from him. He begot a spark of light with a light resembling blessedness. But it does not equal his greatness. This was an only-begotten child of the Mother-Father which had come forth; it is the only offspring, the only-begotten one of the Father, the pure Light.

"And the invisible, virginal Spirit rejoiced over the light which came forth, that which was brought forth first by the first power of his forethought, which is Barbelo. And he anointed it with his goodness until it became perfect, not lacking in any goodness, because he had anointed it with the goodness of the invisible Spirit. And it attended him as he poured upon it. And immediately when it had received from the Spirit, it glorified the holy Spirit and the perfect forethought, for whose sake it had come forth.

"And it requested to give it a fellow worker, which is the mind, and he consented gladly. And when the invisible Spirit had consented, the mind came forth, and it attended Christ, glorifying him and Barbelo. And all these came into being in silence.

"And the mind wanted to perform a deed through the word of the invisible Spirit. And his will became a deed and it appeared with the mind; and the light glorified it. And the word followed the will. For because of the word, Christ the divine Autogenes created everything. And the eternal life <and> his will and the mind and the foreknowledge attended and glorified the invisible Spirit and Barbelo, for whose sake they had come into being.

"And the holy Spirit completed the divine Autogenes, his son, together with Barbelo, that he may attend the mighty and invisible, virginal Spirit as the divine Autogenes, the Christ whom he had honored with a mighty voice. He came forth through the forethought. And the invisible, virginal Spirit placed the divine Autogenes of truth over everything. And he subjected to him every authority, and the truth which is in him, that he may know the All which had been called with a name exalted above every name. For that name will be mentioned to those who are worthy of it.

"For from the light, which is the Christ, and the indestructibility, through the gift of the Spirit the four lights (appeared) from the divine Autogenes. He expected that they might attend him. And the three (are) will, thought, and life. And the four powers (are) understanding, grace, perception, and prudence. And grace belongs to the light-aeon Armozel, which is the first angel. And there are three other aeons with this aeon: grace, truth, and form. And the second light (is) Oriel, who has been placed over the second aeon. And there are three other aeons with him: conception, perception, and memory. And the third light is Daveithai, who has been placed over the third aeon. And there are three other aeons with him: understanding, love, and idea. And the fourth aeon was placed over the fourth light Eleleth. And there are three other aeons with him: perfection, peace, and wisdom. These are the four lights which attend the divine Autogenes, (and) these are the twelve aeons which attend the son of the mighty one, the Autogenes, the Christ, through the will and the gift of the invisible Spirit. And the twelve aeons belong to the son of the Autogenes. And all things were established by the will of the holy Spirit through the Autogenes.

"And from the foreknowledge of the perfect mind, through the revelation of the will of the invisible Spirit and the will of the Autogenes, <the> perfect Man (appeared), the first revelation, and the truth. It is he whom the virginal Spirit called Pigera-Adamas, and he placed him over the first aeon with the mighty one, the Autogenes, the Christ, by the first light Armozel; and with him are his powers. And the invisible one gave him a spiritual, invincible power. And he spoke and glorified and praised the invisible Spirit, saying, 'It is for thy sake that everything has come into being and everything will return to thee. I shall praise and glorify thee and the Autogenes and the aeons, the three: the Father, the Mother, and the Son, the perfect power.'

"And he placed his son Seth over the second aeon in the presence of the second light Oriel. And in the third aeon the seed of Seth was placed over the third light Daveithai. And the souls of the saints were placed (there). And in the fourth aeon the souls were placed of those who do not know the Pleroma and who did not repent at once, but who persisted for a while and repented afterwards; they are by the fourth light Eleleth. These are creatures which glorify the invisible Spirit.

"And the Sophia of the Epinoia, being an aeon, conceived a thought from herself and the conception of the invisible Spirit and foreknowledge. She wanted to bring forth a likeness out of herself without the consent of the Spirit, - he had not approved - and without her consort, and without his consideration. And though the person of her maleness had not approved, and she had not found her agreement, and she had thought without the consent of the Spirit and the knowledge of her agreement, (yet) she brought forth. And because of the invincible power which is in her, her thought did not remain idle, and something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance, because she had created it without her consort. And it was dissimilar to the likeness of its mother, for it has another form.

"And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance. And she surrounded it with a luminous cloud, and she placed a throne in the middle of the cloud that no one might see it except the holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his name Yaltabaoth.

"This is the first archon who took a great power from his mother. And he removed himself from her and moved away from the places in which he was born. He became strong and created for himself other aeons with a flame of luminous fire which (still) exists now. And he joined with his arrogance which is in him and begot authorities for himself. The name of the first one is Athoth, whom the generations call the reaper. The second one is Harmas, who is the eye of envy. The third one is Kalila-Oumbri. The fourth one is Yabel. The fifth one is Adonaiou, who is called Sabaoth. The sixth one is Cain, whom the generations of men call the sun. The seventh is Abel. The eighth is Abrisene. The ninth is Yobel. The tenth is Armoupieel. The eleventh is Melceir-Adonein. The twelfth is Belias, it is he who is over the depth of Hades. And he placed seven kings - each corresponding to the firmaments of heaven - over the seven heavens, and five over the depth of the abyss, that they may reign. And he shared his fire with them, but he did not send forth from the power of the light which he had taken from his mother, for he is ignorant darkness.

"And when the light had mixed with the darkness, it caused the darkness to shine. And when the darkness had mixed with the light, it darkened the light and it became neither light nor dark, but it became dim.

"Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.

"And the archons created seven powers for themselves, and the powers created for themselves six angels for each one until they became 365 angels. And these are the bodies belonging with the names: the first is Athoth, a he has a sheep's face; the second is Eloaiou, he has a donkey's face; the third is Astaphaios, he has a hyena's face; the fourth is Yao, he has a serpent's face with seven heads; the fifth is Sabaoth, he has a dragon's face; the sixth is Adonin, he had a monkey's face; the seventh is Sabbede, he has a shining fire-face. This is the sevenness of the week.

"But Yaltabaoth had a multitude of faces, more than all of them, so that he could put a face before all of them, according to his desire, when he is in the midst of seraphs. He shared his fire with them; therefore he became lord over them. Because of the power of the glory he possessed of his mother's light, he called himself God. And he did not obey the place from which he came. And he united the seven powers in his thought with the authorities which were with him. And when he spoke it happened. And he named each power beginning with the highest: the first is goodness with the first (authority), Athoth; the second is foreknowledge with the second one, Eloaio; and the third is divinity with the third one, Astraphaio); the fourth is lordship with the fourth one, Yao; the fifth is kingdom with the fifth one, Sabaoth; the sixth is envy with the sixth one, Adonein; the seventh is understanding with the seventh one, Sabbateon. And these have a firmament corresponding to each aeon-heaven. They were given names according to the glory which belongs to heaven for the destruction of the powers. And in the names which were given to them by their Originator there was power. But the names which were given them according to the glory which belongs to heaven mean for them destruction and powerlessness. Thus they have two names.

[Astarte]

Because, for the most part, they are. :D

I had read some as an undergrad. But that's it. I see you linked a book, and if it is Jung, I will for sure read it. Thanks :thumbup:
It's not Jung, but it quotes heavily from his works and seems to maintain a Jungian analysis.


Oh believe me :rolleyes: I know. But in alchemical circles of his time, he was a big deal. That's the point tho. What means of verification is there to distinguish the truth-worthiness of Crowley compared to Jung other than "I like that more?"
word

Heh, well, for one, Jung was an accepted scientist (maybe not by Marxist-Leninsts), and did follow the scientific method - in his work "Synchronicity: an acausal connecting principle", he analyzes data involving synchronistic events. I can't find it online, but a university or local library may have it.

EDIT: Also can you elaborate on this? How can this be done? We are dealing with thought. We are dealing with mind. We are not dealing with the physical. The only thing I can think of which can do this are the synchronicity and probability tests like Jung ran, and have been repeated by others since the mid 20th century.


But I try to explain that we live in a new day and age. This is an age where we can subject enlightenment to the scientific method and empirically verify what enlightenment is, if it even exists, what its uses are, and how it can be achieved.

[ComradeMan]

Maybe the ancients did not delineate between science and mysticism, but we moderns most certainly do, and for good reasons.

But we are not dealing with a modern idea.


OK, but that still doesn't change the fact that modern chemistry bears little resemblance to ancient alchemy.

That's like saying modern mathematics, for example non-Euclidean geometry, would be incomprehensible to the Ancient Greeks whilst ignoring the foundation work in mathematics done by them.


Sure, but like with the Pythagoreans their contributions live on in chemistry because they could be independently verified.

That's not the point- the point is that you can't write off people, especially ancient peoples, because they were prone to use symbolism and mystic language in their "scientific" enquiry.


Ever wonder why metaphors are rarely used in science? Because metaphors are slippery and subjective. Describing rays of sunshine as "golden" does not convey an exact shade, but is an inexact analogy that is subject to interpretation.

Come on that's basically not true- science is full of metaphors. What like "memes" and "blind watchmakers" and even the term "natural selection" could be a metaphor. We talk of the natural world with ubiquitous metaphors such as "enemy", "pest", "survival of the fittest", we frequently apply active verbs to describe reactions and ascribe purpose/motive and so on. Einstein's famous (metaphor) quote "God does not play at dice" was a criticism of the indeterminacy of quantum theory.


That sort of thing is good enough for art, but fucking useless if you want to convey facts and data rather than flowery language.

A metaphor does convey a fact, idea or tangible notion. Interesting that you use a metaphor (flowery language) to denounce metaphors.


Since we live in a more enlightened era, what need is there to speak in code? Language should be clear and concise, especially when one is speaking of knowledge of potentially universal import.

Agreed- but we are dealing with material from a different era and therefore we have to avoid (our) cultural relativism in the analysis.


Yes, but now we know better. The human body isn't governed in any way by "four humours", planets have no effect on people's personalities or fates other than gravitational, and metals represent a specific arrangement of sub-parts unknown to the ancients (although at least one of them, going by the name of Democritus, hypothesised the existence of atoms).

And we have come to know those things through experimentation of those early alchemists/chemists. You've missed the point about the planets being associated (codewords) for metals and also ignore the fact that Starkey seems to have carried out a successful experiment based on this interpretation. No one is arguing that people should continue to describe "science" this way but what is being argued is that the real meaning of what they actually meant is far often lost.


Peer review is not independant confirmation. I'm talking about results. Surely if alchemy is some kind of great insight into the development of the human psyche, there must be some evidence for that?

Jungian psychology?


Pseudoscience isn't borne out by observation and experiment.


"Non-overlapping magisteria" is ass-covering bullshit. Why should any field of knowledge declare itself exempt from the burden of evidence? The important thing is verification. How can one, at least in theory, tell if what an alchemist is saying is true and useful or not?

More use of metaphors I see.... that's not an argument and does any field of knowledge actually declare itself exempt from the burden of evidence? The trouble is not the principle but actually agreeing on that evidence and the conclusions thereof. Remember that guy who experimented with "plant consciousness" using lie-detector machines? Well on Mythbusters they did successfully replicate one of his experiments and the predicted results but.... they said it was a coincidence.


There's plenty of evidence that humans are perfectly capable of leading themselves down philosophical blind alleys, for centuries at a time. In fact until the development of modern science, human progress as to acquring true and useful knowledge about the world was glacially slow.

But human progress is not just about knowing science.


I find them inadequate, and frightfully so. Humans are complex organisms living in a complex world, and even the powerful tools that modern science gifted us does not grant us access to some sacred or ultimate truth with regards to our species, beyond the fact that as hairless apes we're not as far removed from the other animals as we previously thought.

Define complex.


I'm doubtful of the applicability of alchemy, even for strictly "personal" ends, because the human capacity for self-deception is considerable. After all, millions of people are Scientologists apparently, despite the fact that it was entirely invented for making money, and this fact is documented and within living memory!

And billions of people are not.... Anyway because Scientology may be viewed as dubious does not mean that personal introspection using alchemical metaphor is equally dubious.

It has been said that Newton's personal inspiration drawn from his "alchemical" mysticism led him to develop the theories of light and gravity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But we are not dealing with a modern idea.

Funny, last time I checked I was living in the early 21st century, and so were you.


That's like saying modern mathematics, for example non-Euclidean geometry, would be incomprehensible to the Ancient Greeks whilst ignoring the foundation work in mathematics done by them.

The foundation work endures because it can withstand the tests of critical enquiry.


That's not the point- the point is that you can't write off people, especially ancient peoples, because they were prone to use symbolism and mystic language in their "scientific" enquiry.

But I can write off their ideas if they're unsupported by evidence.


Come on that's basically not true- science is full of metaphors. What like "memes" and "blind watchmakers" and even the term "natural selection" could be a metaphor. We talk of the natural world with ubiquitous metaphors such as "enemy", "pest", "survival of the fittest", we frequently apply active verbs to describe reactions and ascribe purpose/motive and so on.

The terms you mentioned here have specific definitions, at least as used amongst scientists. They're not comparable to metaphors like "golden rays of sunshine".


Einstein's famous (metaphor) quote "God does not play at dice" was a criticism of the indeterminacy of quantum theory.

But he didn't just write a load of attractive metaphors, did he? He formulated a physical theory that has so far withstood the tests we have thrown at it.


A metaphor does convey a fact, idea or tangible notion. Interesting that you use a metaphor (flowery language) to denounce metaphors.

It conveys them imprecisely. When you're investigating the real world, precision is of utmost importance. This is the sort of language scientists use:

"The existence of a significant flux of antiprotons confined to Earth's magnetosphere has been considered in several theoretical works. These antiparticles are produced in nuclear interactions of energetic cosmic rays with the terrestrial atmosphere and accumulate in the geomagnetic field at altitudes of several hundred kilometers. A contribution from the decay of albedo antineutrons has been hypothesized in analogy to proton production by neutron decay, which constitutes the main source of trapped protons at energies above some tens of MeV. This Letter reports the discovery of an antiproton radiation belt around the Earth. The trapped antiproton energy spectrum in the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) region has been measured by the PAMELA experiment for the kinetic energy range 60--750 MeV. A measurement of the atmospheric sub-cutoff antiproton spectrum outside the radiation belts is also reported. PAMELA data show that the magnetospheric antiproton flux in the SAA exceeds the cosmic-ray antiproton flux by three orders of magnitude at the present solar minimum, and exceeds the sub-cutoff antiproton flux outside radiation belts by four orders of magnitude, constituting the most abundant source of antiprotons near the Earth"

[arXiv:[1107.4882v1] (http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4882v1)]


Agreed- but we are dealing with material from a different era and therefore we have to avoid (our) cultural relativism in the analysis.

Cop-out. If something is true, then it's true and "culture" can go hang. If it's cloaked in obfuscating terminology, then extract the truth from that in modern terms.


And we have come to know those things through experimentation of those early alchemists/chemists. You've missed the point about the planets being associated (codewords) for metals and also ignore the fact that Starkey seems to have carried out a successful experiment based on this interpretation. No one is arguing that people should continue to describe "science" this way but what is being argued is that the real meaning of what they actually meant is far often lost.

The point being that the entire alchemical framework is based on mistaken assumptions, as the alchemists of yesterday could not possibly have known what the physicists and chemists and biologists and doctors of today know.


Jungian psychology?

Ah, so what great advances in tackling mental illness have we made as a result?

Or is Jungian psychology, as I suspect, a load of bullcrap much like Freudian psychology?


More use of metaphors I see.... that's not an argument and does any field of knowledge actually declare itself exempt from the burden of evidence?

Theology. The whole subject a priori pre-supposes the existence of a deity, conveniently ignoring the whole "burden of evidence" thing.


The trouble is not the principle but actually agreeing on that evidence and the conclusions thereof. Remember that guy who experimented with "plant consciousness" using lie-detector machines? Well on Mythbusters they did successfully replicate one of his experiments and the predicted results but.... they said it was a coincidence.

So what's the mechanism for plant consciousness? In animals there is neural tissue, but in plants... ?


But human progress is not just about knowing science.

OK, so what great political/social advances has alchemy contributed to? Recently?


Define complex.

By any reasonable definition humans are complex, come on.


And billions of people are not.... Anyway because Scientology may be viewed as dubious does not mean that personal introspection using alchemical metaphor is equally dubious.

I suppose it depends on the purpose of the introspection. If one is considering ideas for a role-playing game, then I definitely see it being useful.


It has been said that Newton's personal inspiration drawn from his "alchemical" mysticism led him to develop the theories of light and gravity.

It doesn't matter what inspired him, he could have been inspired by a little too much claret after lunch, what matters is that his ideas have withstood skeptical scrutiny.

[Astarte]

I am wondering what kind of reality scientists say existed prior to the big bang? What were conditions like inside of the super-condensed singularity of matter before it big banged? Did time and space exist inside of it? Was it a 3 dimensional reality...?

[ComradeMan]

Funny, last time I checked I was living in the early 21st century, and so were you.

What has that got to do with the analysis and description of older expressions of consciousness and knowledge?


The terms you mentioned here have specific definitions, at least as used amongst scientists. They're not comparable to metaphors like "golden rays of sunshine".

Come off it- "natural selection", select is an active verb and implies a subject which I believe is obligatory in English.... :rolleyes:

Okay-my parentheses in your quote-



"The existence of a significant (subjective) flux of antiprotons confined to Earth's magnetosphere has been considered (clever use of passive) in several (imprecise- how many?) theoretical works. These antiparticles are produced in nuclear interactions of energetic cosmic rays with the terrestrial atmosphere and accumulate in the geomagnetic field at altitudes of several hundred kilometers. A contribution from the decay of albedo antineutrons has been hypothesized in analogy to proton production by neutron decay ( do neutrons rot? :D)..."Now is that typical of ALL scientific description in ALL scientific fields? The words "selfish gene" come to mind...

Cop-out. If something is true, then it's true and "culture" can go hang. If it's cloaked in obfuscating terminology, then extract the truth from that in modern terms.

Define truth and I was not aware that culture could literally hang itself--- naughty, naughty- you're using another metaphor! :tt2: As for extracting truth form that in modern terms, is that not what our poor and much derided (here) friend Astarte has actually been attempting? :crying:


The point being that the entire alchemical framework is based on mistaken assumptions, as the alchemists of yesterday could not possibly have known what the physicists and chemists and biologists and doctors of today know.

For example...? Sources please....


Ah, so what great advances in tackling mental illness have we made as a result? Or is Jungian psychology, as I suspect, a load of bullcrap much like Freudian psychology?

So psychology- the science of behaviour mental processes, taught and practised all over the world and recognised by all major academic bodies as a subject with respective degrees and research grants etc awarded is all a load of bullcrap... not because you know, but rather because you suspect. Suspicion is not a conclusive demonstration of guilt. No one would argue that psychology is without its flaws, like most sciences (e.g. the theory of relativity was pretty concrete until the other day- excuse the metaphor:D) however that no more invalidates psychology than geology was invalidated by plate techtonics.


Theology. The whole subject a priori pre-supposes the existence of a deity, conveniently ignoring the whole "burden of evidence" thing.

Theology is not considered to be a science though, is it?


So what's the mechanism for plant consciousness? In animals there is neural tissue, but in plants... ?This is a subject for a different thread- the point was not the subject in itself but if you'd like to start a thread on this I am sure it would be interesting.


OK, so what great political/social advances has alchemy contributed to? Recently?

See the comments on Newton- inspired...


By any reasonable definition humans are complex, come on.

Okay... but can I have a reasonable definition of complex please?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am wondering what kind of reality scientists say existed prior to the big bang?

They're not certain, but they have a number of hypotheses. Certain models of the big bang render your question a meaningless one; there was no "before" the big bang, but rather the universe has an asymptotic limit in the pastward direction.

Further investigation of the universe will tell us which is closer to the truth.


What were conditions like inside of the super-condensed singularity of matter before it big banged?

The same as they were in the rest of the universe, because that compact little object was the universe. In the classical Big Bang model the singularity was of infinite density and temperature, but that is clearly a nonsensical result, hence refinements such as cosmological inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29) (which also serves to explain the universe's homogeneity).

But regardless of the details, cosmologists agree that the early universe was a much smaller, hotter place.


Did time and space exist inside of it?

If we define the universe as the totality of spacetime, well then it would have to, wouldn't it?


Was it a 3 dimensional reality...?

Are we including time as a dimension here? In any case, there are hypotheses that incorporate extra dimensions (some theoreticians find them useful, at any rate), but they're proving difficult to make predictions for that relativity hasn't already beaten them to.

[Astarte]

They're not certain, but they have a number of hypotheses. Certain models of the big bang render your question a meaningless one; there was no "before" the big bang, but rather the universe has an asymptotic limit in the pastward direction.

Further investigation of the universe will tell us which is closer to the truth.



The same as they were in the rest of the universe, because that compact little object was the universe. In the classical Big Bang model the singularity was of infinite density and temperature, but that is clearly a nonsensical result, hence refinements such as cosmological inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29) (which also serves to explain the universe's homogeneity).

But regardless of the details, cosmologists agree that the early universe was a much smaller, hotter place.



If we define the universe as the totality of spacetime, well then it would have to, wouldn't it?



Are we including time as a dimension here? In any case, there are hypotheses that incorporate extra dimensions (some theoreticians find them useful, at any rate), but they're proving difficult to make predictions for that relativity hasn't already beaten them to.

Cool, thanks, I really am interested in the actual science of this, but in all honesty haven't studied it much - gonna read up on this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What has that got to do with the analysis and description of older expressions of consciousness and knowledge?

I dunno, why are you bringing it up? Has it got anything to do with making it applicable to us?


Come off it- "natural selection", select is an active verb and implies a subject which I believe is obligatory in English.... :rolleyes:

Okay-my parentheses in your quote-

Now is that typical of ALL scientific description in ALL scientific fields? The words "selfish gene" come to mind...

1) The use of the word "significant" is relative, not subjective.

2) What's wrong with the passive voice?

3) Doubtless at least some of those works will be found in the citations.

4) "Decay" has a specific meaning in physics. It's origins may be metaphorical but it has now become a technical term.


Define truth and I was not aware that culture could literally hang itself--- naughty, naughty- you're using another metaphor! :tt2: As for extracting truth form that in modern terms, is that not what our poor and much derided (here) friend Astarte has actually been attempting? :crying:

Really? I wasn't aware that "revelatory dreams" had any relevance to truth.


For example...? Sources please....

Much of what we know about biology and physics was discovered long after alchemy and its methods fell out of fashion except among the odd bunch of occultists and mystics.


So psychology- the science of behaviour mental processes, taught and practised all over the world and recognised by all major academic bodies as a subject with respective degrees and research grants etc awarded is all a load of bullcrap... not because you know, but rather because you suspect. Suspicion is not a conclusive demonstration of guilt. No one would argue that psychology is without its flaws, like most sciences (e.g. the theory of relativity was pretty concrete until the other day- excuse the metaphor:D) however that no more invalidates psychology than geology was invalidated by plate techtonics.

You dolt, I did not dismiss the entire field of psychology, I dismissed the pseudoscientific Jungian and Freudian variants.


Theology is not considered to be a science though, is it?

Why should the evidence-based approach be limited to science?


This is a subject for a different thread- the point was not the subject in itself but if you'd like to start a thread on this I am sure it would be interesting.

Handwaving. One result (possibly spurious) does not a hypothesis confirm.


See the comments on Newton- inspired...

See my comments about it not mattering where the inspiration came from, but what does matter is that it could be tested.


Okay... but can I have a reasonable definition of complex please.

What's wrong with the dictionary?

[ComradeMan]

1) The use of the word "significant" is relative, not subjective.

Hmmm... the word is neither subjective nor relative without its context really. To say something is significant is to say it's meaningful and I am not so sure how objective that can be.


2) What's wrong with the passive voice?

It mystifies by obfuscating the subject.


4) "Decay" has a specific meaning in physics. It's origins may be metaphorical but it has now become a technical term.

I know, hence the :tt2:- however the words used by Astarte also have their specific meanings within her framework.


Really? I wasn't aware that "revelatory dreams" had any relevance to truth.

Subjectively they would and as part of psycho-analysis are important- but you'll have to take this issue up with her...


Much of what we know about biology and physics was discovered long after alchemy and its methods fell out of fashion except among the odd bunch of occultists and mystics.

Like Newton's groundwork? :unsure: I suppose Newton was one of that odd bunch of occultists and mystics. :lol:


You dolt, I did not dismiss the entire field of psychology, I dismissed the pseudoscientific Jungian and Freudian variants.

*Cough" can you logically and scientifically demonstrate the flaws with Freud and Jung (I acknowledge they have their critics) but I wonder how you can just dismiss such major figures, founders in a sense, of modern psychology so easily.


Why should the evidence-based approach be limited to science?

How do you propose then an evidence based approach to art or literature?


Handwaving. One result (possibly spurious) does not a hypothesis confirm.

I don't follow what you mean- anyway, that was just an example to show the sometimes "you can't win" approach that is perceived with regard to science.


What's wrong with the dictionary?

Nothing, but I'd prefer you to explain what you mean by complex. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hmmm... the word is neither subjective nor relative without its context really. To say something is significant is to say it's meaningful and I am not so sure how objective that can be.

The quoted text was an abstract of a paper describing the discovery of anti-protons trapped in the Earth's magnetic field.


It mystifies by obfuscating the subject.

Anyone with half a brain would know exactly where to start looking. Obviously there have been theoretical predictions of antimatter being trapped in the Earth's magnetosphere, and this paper represents an empirical finding of same.


I know, hence the :tt2:- however the words used by Astarte also have their specific meanings within her framework.

But as you mentioned yourself, it was an argot deliberately designed to obfuscate. The need for secrecy (apparently alchemy has been illegal in a lot of places throughout history) runs counter to what makes modern science so effective - access to information.


Like Newton's groundwork? :unsure: I suppose Newton was one of that odd bunch of occultists and mystics. :lol:

I don't expect great genius to grant some kind of immunity from holding woo-woo (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html) beliefs. But whether an idea is woo or not does not depend on the intelligence of its first proponent.


*Cough" can you logically and scientifically demonstrate the flaws with Freud and Jung (I acknowledge they have their critics) but I wonder how you can just dismiss such major figures, founders in a sense, of modern psychology so easily.

Because science is not about "great men".


How do you propose then an evidence based approach to art or literature?

Art or literature aren't about truth. Making shit up, that's what the whole "fiction" business is about, you know?

Let's do a little experiment; judging by your posts here, you would not think less of a person if they took alchemy seriously and used it for "personal growth" or "developing their self" or some other personal goal.

But! What would you make of someone who treated, say, Star Trek in the same manner? They use Trek-based and -derived metaphors, they follow one or more of the philosophies espoused in Star Trek films, TV shows and books as a guide to life, and they extensively use Star Trek imagery and iconography. They would truly be a Trekkie in the deepest sense of the word, would they not?

Make no mistake, there is some admirable philosophy within the Star Trek canon (certainly the morals and behaviours displayed by Trek characters are overall much better than that of Biblical characters!), but because it's so obviously a work of fiction, nobody takes it seriously. Nobody gives a speaking slot on social issues to someone because they happen to be an expert on all things Star Trek.

So why should we take alchemists seriously on matters other than alchemy? If some luminary dabbled in alchemy, why should we take that as having any more significance than a love of genre fiction?


I don't follow what you mean- anyway, that was just an example to show the sometimes "you can't win" approach that is perceived with regard to science.

I meant that you can hardly rely on one result from an entertainment program to tell much that is useful.


Nothing, but I'd prefer you to explain what you mean by complex. :)

A single person is a extraordinary confluence of influences, social, environmental, genetic, and the vissitudes of living for multiple decades or some cases, over a century in a world filled with similarly complex organisms. And there's 6 billion of them and counting, all sharing the same planet as part of a global meta-civilisation, itself an intricate system which even it's builders, the humans, haven't entirely figured out.

Good enough?

[ComradeMan]

But as you mentioned yourself, it was an argot deliberately designed to obfuscate. The need for secrecy (apparently alchemy has been illegal in a lot of places throughout history) runs counter to what makes modern science so effective - access to information.

So that does not invalidate so much as explain. I don't think anyone here is aguing against science or setting up some kind of alchemy versus science smackdown.


Because science is not about "great men".

No, but "great men" (and women) have also contributed to science. You can't write off the genius and inspiration of figures like Newton and Einstein just like that.


Art or literature aren't about truth. Making shit up, that's what the whole "fiction" business is about, you know?

What is truth? The fiction itself may be made up, i.e. the telling of a story, but there is usually a deeper meaning that seeks to express a truth. Animal Farm and 1984 were "made up" but were they not seeking to express a truth of some kind?


Let's do a little experiment; judging by your posts here, you would not think less of a person if they took alchemy seriously and used it for "personal growth" or "developing their self" or some other personal goal. But! What would you make of someone who treated, say, Star Trek in the same manner? They use Trek-based and -derived metaphors, they follow one or more of the philosophies espoused in Star Trek films, TV shows and books as a guide to life, and they extensively use Star Trek imagery and iconography. They would truly be a Trekkie in the deepest sense of the word, would they not?

Well until they tried to force their Trekkiedom on me it wouldn't really bother me to be frank. They would have found their own truth in the expression of Star Trek- see point above about fiction.


So why should we take alchemists seriously on matters other than alchemy? If some luminary dabbled in alchemy, why should we take that as having any more significance than a love of genre fiction?

But, I may be mistaken, I don't think that's what Astarte was arguing to be honest. I thought she was arguing against/defending against the attack on the invalidity of her own position.


I meant that you can hardly rely on one result from an entertainment program to tell much that is useful.

No you can't, but that programme does promote itself in a sense through its very name "Mythbusters". Again the point was a bit like the Catch22 situation that often exists with "evidence".


A single person is a extraordinary confluence of influences, social, environmental, genetic, and the vissitudes of living for multiple decades or some cases, over a century in a world filled with similarly complex organisms. And there's 6 billion of them and counting, all sharing the same planet as part of a global meta-civilisation, itself an intricate system which even it's builders, the humans, haven't entirely figured out.

Nice definition but...


Good enough?

... no, because you haven't actually defined complex you've said what you consider to be complex and even used the word itself in the definition.

[Astarte]

Honestly, this has been dragged on for so long, I am not even sure what is being asked anymore. What explanation is being asked and what can I give? But - Psychology and mysticism = Trekkie-ism?

I would say that the Trekkie's absorbed that life style in the struggle for the individuation of their own selves. We all do this - we all look for ideals or ideologies which we either unconsciously or consciously assimilate into how we see ourselves - the Trekkies are an extreme version. There are many occurrences of people identifying themselves whole heartedly with everything from most the trivial and mundane i.e. Star Trek, to becoming a fundamentalist Muslim, or being a Dominatrix or even being an orthodox Trotskyite.

How about this dude for example:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=921&pictureid=7979

The below is an elaboration on the idea of "Gold" in alchemy, its about half of the section and I transcribed it late last night, if there is a genuine interest I will type up the rest - but you should get the gist of the idea of gold as the "philosophers stone".


This is from IV. Rex and Regina, of Mysterium Coniunctionis, by Jung:

"2. Gold and Spirit

The striking analogy between certain alchemical ideas and Christian dogma is not accidental but in accordance with tradition. A good part of the symbolism of the king derives from this source. Just as Christian dogma derives in part from Egypto-Hellenistic folklore, as well as from the Judaeo-Hellenistic philosophy of writers like Philo, so, too, does alchemy. Its origin is certainly not purely Christian, but is largely pagan or Gnostic. Its oldest treatises come from that sphere, among them the treatise of Komarios (1st cent.?) and the writings of Pseudo-Democritus (1st to 2nd cent.?) and Zosimos (3rd cent.). The title of one of the latter's treatises is "The True Book of Sophe the Egyptian and Divine Lord of the Hebrews, [and] of the Powers of Sabaoth." Berthelot thinks that Zosimos really was the author, and this is quite possible. The treatise speaks of a knowledge or wisdom that from the Aeons:

Ungoverned and autonomous is its origins; it is non-material and it seeks none of the material and the wholly corruptible bodies. For it acts without being acted upon. But, on their asking for a gift, the symbol of the chymic art comes forth from creation for those who rescue and purify the divine soul chained in the elements, that is, the divine Pneuma mingled with the flesh. For as the sun is the blossom of fire, and the heavenly sun is the right eye of the world, so also the copper, when purification makes it to blossom, is an earthly sun, a king upon earth, like the sun in heaven."

It is clear from this and from the text that follows that the "symbol of the chymic art", the king, is none other than gold, the king of metals. But it is equally clear that the gold comes into being only through the liberation of the divine soil or pneuma from the chains of the "flesh". No doubt it would have suited our rational expectations better if the text had said not "flesh" but "ore" or "earth". Although the elements are mentioned as the prison of the divine psyche, the whole of nature is meant, Physis in general; not just ore and earth but water, air and fire, and besides these the "flesh", an expression that already in the third century meant the "world" in a moral sense as opposed to the spirit, and not simply the human body. Consequently, there can be no doubt that the chrysopoeia (gold-making) was thought of as a psychic operation running parallel to the physical process and, as it were, independent of it. The moral and spiritual transformation was not only independent of the physical procedure but actually seemed to be its causa efficiens. This explains the high-flown language, which would be somewhat out of place in a merely chemical recipe. The psyche previously imprisoned in the elements and divine spirit hidden in flesh overcome their physical imperfections and clothe themselves in the noblest of all bodies, the royal gold. Thus the "philosophic" gold is an embodiment of psyche and pneuma, both of which signify "life-spirit". It is in fact an "aurum non vulgi", a living gold, so to speak, which corresponds in every respect to the lapis. It, too, is a living being with a body, soul, and spirit, and it is easily personified as a divine being or a superior person like a king, who in olden times was considered to be God incarnate [note: Rex as synonym of the lapis: "The Philosophers' stone ... is the Chemical King" ("Aquarium sapientum," Mus. herm., p. 119; Waite, I, p. 103). In Lambspringk's Symbols he is the perfected arcane substance: "I have overcome and vanquished my foes, I have trodden the venomous Dragon under foot, I am a great and glorious King in the earth ... Therefore Hermes has called me the Lord of the Forests". (Mus. herm., p. 358; Waite, I, p. 292.) "The Philosopher's stone is the king descending from Heaven." ("Consil. coniug.," Ars chemica, p. 61) In Hoghelande's "De alchemiae difficultatibus" (Theatr. chem., I, p. 162) there is a strange description of the stone as a "tall and helmeted man" (homo galeatus et altus); it is also a "king crowned with a red diadem." In Mylius (Phil. ref., p.17) it is the "princely stone" (princeps lapis).] In this connection Zosimos availed himself of a primordial image in the form of the divine Anthropos, who at that time had attained a crucial significance in philosophy and religion, not only in Christianity but also in Mithraism. The Bible as well as the Mithraic monuments and the Gnostic writings bear witness to this. Zosimos has, moreover, left us a long testimony on this theme. The thoughts of this writer, directly or indirectly, were of decisive importance for the whole philosophical and Gnostic trend of alchemy in the centuries that followed. As I have dealt with this subject in considerable detail in "Psychology and Alchemy" I need not go into it here. I mention it only because the above passage from Zosimos is, to my knowledge, the earliest reference to the king in alchemy. As an Egyptian, Zosimos would have been familiar with the mystique of kingship, which at that time was enjoying a new efflorescence under the Caesars, and so it was easy for him to carry over the identity of the divine pneuma with the king into alchemical practice, itself both physical and pneumatic, after the older writings of Pseudo-Democritus had paved the way with their views on divine nature.

EDIT: True individuation means finding your own subjective "Gold".

EDIT II: ...As the Inca also viewed Gold as the "Sweat of the Sun" ... and of course the Sun was deified. They also were not the only ones prior or apart from the Alchemists to associated gold with divinity http://info.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_arts/in_civ/in_myth.html - so you see - the collective unconsciousness really isn't nonsense, unless you would argue that the pre-Columbian Incans had contact with the Medieval alchemists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So that does not invalidate so much as explain. I don't think anyone here is aguing against science or setting up some kind of alchemy versus science smackdown.

That openness is part of what makes science so successful, and is part of why alchemy is the province of reclusive mystics. It takes real knowledge about the world to change it, and the means that science uses to acquire knowledge are highly effective.


No, but "great men" (and women) have also contributed to science. You can't write off the genius and inspiration of figures like Newton and Einstein just like that.

Well, it strikes me as pointless anyway to judge people who have been dead for centuries. But we can most certainly judge their works, because they stand or fall on their own merits.


What is truth? The fiction itself may be made up, i.e. the telling of a story, but there is usually a deeper meaning that seeks to express a truth. Animal Farm and 1984 were "made up" but were they not seeking to express a truth of some kind?

It strikes me as disingenuous to ask me to define truth, and then go ahead and use the concept anyway in a subsequent statement. Hell, even asking the question in the first place strikes me as some kind of intellectual gambit rather than an honest question. And you wonder why I call you a troll?


Well until they tried to force their Trekkiedom on me it wouldn't really bother me to be frank. They would have found their own truth in the expression of Star Trek- see point above about fiction.

This paragraph right here tells me you are a fucking bullshitter through and through - there is no such thing as people having "their own truths" - people can have their own opinions, their own feelings, and their own personal preferences, and stuff they read can resonate with them in some fashion, but they cannot have their own truths.


But, I may be mistaken, I don't think that's what Astarte was arguing to be honest. I thought she was arguing against/defending against the attack on the invalidity of her own position.

The onus is on alchemy to prove itself. Science gave us penicillin and nuclear bombs, it has proven its efficacy well beyond any reasonable doubt, and as such is something of global importance. But if alchemy has any application beyond the artistic and the fanciful, where is the evidence for that?


No you can't, but that programme does promote itself in a sense through its very name "Mythbusters". Again the point was a bit like the Catch22 situation that often exists with "evidence".

What catch-22? That one result is perhaps justification for further investigation, but by itself doesn't tell us much.


Nice definition but...

... no, because you haven't actually defined complex you've said what you consider to be complex and even used the word itself in the definition.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Human beings are complex by any reasonable definition of the word. You asked me to explain what I meant, so I did. If that's not good enough for you then you can fuck off, because quite frankly I'm fucking tired of seeing you ask me to define words which can be found in children's dictionaries.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Honestly, this has been dragged on for so long, I am not even sure what is being asked anymore. What explanation is being asked and what can I give? But - Psychology and mysticism = Trekkie-ism?

Evidence that alchemy works is all that is asked. No, some fusty old alchemist claiming to be wise doesn't count as evidence.


I would say that the Trekkie's absorbed that life style in the struggle for the individuation of their own selves. We all do this - we all look for ideals or ideologies which we either unconsciously or consciously assimilate into how we see ourselves - the Trekkies are an extreme version. There are many occurrences of people identifying themselves whole heartedly with everything from most the trivial and mundane i.e. Star Trek, to becoming a fundamentalist Muslim, or being a Dominatrix or even being an orthodox Trotskyite.

Absolutely, but we don't need alchemy to tell us that, it's an observation that anyone of at least average intelligence will make if they live long enough.


How about this dude for example:

The below is an elaboration on the idea of "Gold" in alchemy, its about half of the section and I transcribed it late last night, if there is a genuine interest I will type up the rest - but you should get the gist of the idea of gold as the "philosophers stone".

It's a nice illustration of the funny ideas we humans have historically held concerning certain chemical elements.

For example, why is gold of all things the "king of metals"? Sure, it's rare and it looks pretty, but beyond a few specialised applications such as high-end electronics, gold isn't that fantastic a metal.

Doubtless the use of gold in currency contributed to its perception as a "kingly" metal, but that has nothing really to do with the metal itself, that's just something that we've come to associate with it.

Why not have steel as the "king of metals"? Vast chunks of our civilisation depend on various forms of steel, I would say that far outweighs gold in importance.


EDIT: True individuation means finding your own subjective "Gold".

EDIT II: ...As the Inca also viewed Gold as the "Sweat of the Sun" ... and of course the Sun was deified. They also were not the only ones prior or apart from the Alchemists to associated gold with divinity http://info.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_arts/in_civ/in_myth.html - so you see - the collective unconsciousness really isn't nonsense, unless you would argue that the pre-Columbian Incans had contact with the Medieval alchemists.

That humans have valued gold throughout history isn't evidence of a collective unconscious. Shiny objects are relatively rare in the ancestral environment, especially golden-coloured shiny objects. Gold (along with silver) can be found in free deposits requiring little processing beyond shaping. Other organisms such as magpies are also attracted to shiny objects. The physical properties of gold itself lend it well to use in jewellery (often worn by kings) and as a currency, if not much else.

As a result of the above facts and others, we should have been surprised, if not shocked, had we discovered that the Incas did not value gold in some fashion.

[Astarte]

Evidence that alchemy works is all that is asked. No, some fusty old alchemist claiming to be wise doesn't count as evidence.

I think this has been a very productive exchange, but the evidences of alchemy are the same as the evidences of other enlightenment theologies like Buddhism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Taoism, etc... pretty much it is proven to one self through subjective enlightenment experiences - its the whole idea of "the kingdom of God is within you", as Tolstoy would have said. I can't offer any other proofs, but things surrounding these matters, like synchronicity, have been elaborated on by Jung and have withstood apparently scrutiny for confirmation bias.




Absolutely, but we don't need alchemy to tell us that, it's an observation that anyone of at least average intelligence will make if they live long enough.

But modern psychology has essentially analyzed mental processes -these kinds of psychological analyses were heavily influenced by Freud and Jung in the early to mid twentieth century. Even in more complex issues of "abnormal psychology" Jung is crucial - especially in terms of schizophrenia and phenomena such as psychosis. I suspect throwing away his work would probably take away a large portion of the medical school of thought surrounding it.


It's a nice illustration of the funny ideas we humans have historically held concerning certain chemical elements.

Its a metaphor of the individuation of the self - many theological texts pertaining to "enlightenment" contain metaphorical language ultimately dealing with the individuation of the self - even the whole novel "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville can be taken as a tale of the individuation of the self - though it also shows much deeper psychological themes.


Doubtless the use of gold in currency contributed to its perception as a "kingly" metal, but that has nothing really to do with the metal itself, that's just something that we've come to associate with it.
I think gold was associated as a kingly metal, because, as you mentioned, a. it was rare and looked pretty, but also because of a. it was b. horded by those in state power and made to be associated with royal power. It does have a lot to do with how we perceive this metal though - when seeing it, you cannot help but associate it with the Sun - as the Sun is the "King of Heaven", so is gold the "King of Metals".


Why not have steel as the "king of metals"? Vast chunks of our civilisation depend on various forms of steel, I would say that far outweighs gold in importance.
How much capital would it take to acquire 1 ton of gold compared to 1 ton of steel? That's why steel can't compete as the "king of metals" - as you said, despite its apparent lesser value in terms of usefulness, gold is irrationally fetishized by capitalism as all past modes, and is still more "valuable" than most metals.




That humans have valued gold throughout history isn't evidence of a collective unconscious. Shiny objects are relatively rare in the ancestral environment, especially golden-coloured shiny objects. Gold (along with silver) can be found in free deposits requiring little processing beyond shaping. Other organisms such as magpies are also attracted to shiny objects. The physical properties of gold itself lend it well to use in jewellery (often worn by kings) and as a currency, if not much else.

But the magpies didn't adorn their sarcophaguses with gold as in Egypt, or wore it on their bodies in burial chambers as in Ur.


As a result of the above facts and others, we should have been surprised, if not shocked, had we discovered that the Incas did not value gold in some fashion.

Maybe they are a good example of a pre-currency state civilization - The statists which horded the gold were the kings with heavy support from the priest class - would be interesting to know what exactly the Incan ruling class would have valued gold for more than for its alleged attribute of being the sweat of their very visible deity - the Sun itself.

[ComradeMan]

It strikes me as disingenuous to ask me to define truth, and then go ahead and use the concept anyway in a subsequent statement. Hell, even asking the question in the first place strikes me as some kind of intellectual gambit rather than an honest question. And you wonder why I call you a troll?

As usual you start getting aggressive when you can't/won't/or are reluctant to answer a question. I've done my best to answer your questions/points without being offensive.


This paragraph right here tells me you are a fucking bullshitter through and through - there is no such thing as people having "their own truths" - people can have their own opinions, their own feelings, and their own personal preferences, and stuff they read can resonate with them in some fashion, but they cannot have their own truths.

See above- well if truth is fundamentally subjective then we could argue that from an existential point of view as suggested by Kierkegaard. But the problem is that we cannot empirically or objectively pin down truth can we?
You on the other hand make the absolute statement that people cannot have their own personal truths yet do not define exactly what this truth is that they cannot have.:confused:


The onus is on alchemy to prove itself. Science gave us penicillin and nuclear bombs, it has proven its efficacy well beyond any reasonable doubt, and as such is something of global importance. But if alchemy has any application beyond the artistic and the fanciful, where is the evidence for that?

And as a result of the alchemists' work we have modern chemistry and perhaps the work of Newton. Here's an article that takes an interesting look at the influence of "alchemy" on medicine in the 16th-17th centuries and that role it played in the development of medicine as a whole.
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=history_honproj&sei-redir=1#search=%22alchemys%20influence%20science%2 2


Oh, for fuck's sake. Human beings are complex by any reasonable definition of the word.

Well then give me a reasonable definition of the word please.


You asked me to explain what I meant, so I did.

No you didn't. I asked you for a definition of complex and you gave an example of a human being that you consider to be complex and that used the word itself in your "definition".


If that's not good enough for you then you can fuck off, because quite frankly I'm fucking tired of seeing you ask me to define words which can be found in children's dictionaries.

Well if it's so simple and you have a children's dictionary to hand why not give that definition in the first place?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As usual you start getting aggressive when you can't/won't/or are reluctant to answer a question. I've done my best to answer your questions/points without being offensive.

"The Earth orbits the Sun" is an example of a statement that is true. Now can you please get to the fucking point?


See above- well if truth is fundamentally subjective then we could argue that from an existential point of view as suggested by Kierkegaard. But the problem is that we cannot empirically or objectively pin down truth can we?

Yes we can, you stupid troll. If something is true, then that truth can be verified in some fashion.


You on the other hand make the absolute statement that people cannot have their own personal truths yet do not define exactly what this truth is that they cannot have.:confused:

No, I'm saying that it's fucking stupid to elevate personal quirks and preferences to the level of "truth" - how can we determine if something is true if we cannot verify it?


And as a result of the alchemists' work we have modern chemistry and perhaps the work of Newton. Here's an article that takes an interesting look at the influence of "alchemy" on medicine in the 16th-17th centuries and that role it played in the development of medicine as a whole.
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=history_honproj&sei-redir=1#search=%22alchemys%20influence%20science%2 2

Considering the state of medicine in the 16th-17th centuries (at least in Europe), that's not something that alchemy should be proud of.


Well then give me a reasonable definition of the word please.

Adjective: Consisting of many different and connected parts.


No you didn't. I asked you for a definition of complex and you gave an example of a human being that you consider to be complex and that used the word itself in your "definition".

I was focusing on humans but I was also acknowledging that other animals are complex in similar ways to humans, on account of all life being genetically related and all that.


Well if it's so simple and you have a children's dictionary to hand why not give that definition in the first place?

Why the fuck couldn't you do it? You're on the internet for fuck's sake, it would have taken you seconds. Fucking troll.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes we can, you stupid troll. If something is true, then that truth can be verified in some fashion.

If we make the assumption that reality exists. In other words, reality acts like it is real, even if it was a demon's spell or a computer program, and as long as that is true, we can verify from there.
But you always have to remember that we can only assume there is anything objective about reality in the first place. We have every reason to believe that I cannot fart and lift off into space, or that on other planets there isn't magic. Unfortunately tho, it's just a belief.




No, I'm saying that it's fucking stupid to elevate personal quirks and preferences to the level of "truth" - how can we determine if something is true if we cannot verify it?

Now this is where I stand on the issue. If hermeticism or alchemy has any real merit whatsoever, it can be subjected the scientific method of verification. To say that "oh you didn't believe hard enough" or anything like that is a cop out. If it is true that you can bend reality to your will, than that is the new truth, and there is a cause.
I said in a discussion one time in response to someone saying I didn't believe in miracles; "no. I believe that if miracles happened, there was a cause. And apparently worship of a sky wizard, with its >.02% succes rate is not that cause."

I have seen a 90 year old man stand on one finger leaned against a wall. He said when he was younger he could stand on one finger in an open field. Other men have taken battering rams to stomach. I have seen a 5 ft 8 man jump and put his foot 13 ft in the air. Apparently those shaolin monks, with their +/- 30% success rate (idk any exact numbers here) are on to something.
In Discover they have an article about a biologist who has a spray that can grow back lost body parts. It grew back a whole finger, and I mean down to the first knuckle from the palm. It is growing back a leg. Geneticists can now grow corn in the desert. Soon we may even clone fish and bread. Science, with its incredible success rate is on to something.

[Sputnik_1]

I am from a religious family myself and my personal experience proved what most of comrades already wrote in this thread: religion is oppressing people, distract them from what is really important and creates conflicts between them.

[hatzel]

I am from a religious family myself and my personal experience proved what most of comrades already wrote in this thread: religion is oppressing people, distract them from what is really important and creates conflicts between them.

To be honest, the same could probably be said of something else discovered in this thread: that using the words 'fuck,' 'fucking' and 'idiot' that many times in one post has roughly the same effect :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If we make the assumption that reality exists. In other words, reality acts like it is real, even if it was a demon's spell or a computer program, and as long as that is true, we can verify from there.
But you always have to remember that we can only assume there is anything objective about reality in the first place. We have every reason to believe that I cannot fart and lift off into space, or that on other planets there isn't magic. Unfortunately tho, it's just a belief.

If someone proposed a transportation system based on farting, they would have to show the rest of us how it works if we're to take it as anything other than idle fancy.

Same with magic. If we're to take it as anything other than a fiction, we need evidence for it.

We know the composition of the Lunar regolith because we sent people there and brought samples of it back. That's evidence.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think naturalistic or scientific pantheism can be compatible with a materialist worldview.

[Sputnik_1]

To be honest, the same could probably be said of something else discovered in this thread: that using the words 'fuck,' 'fucking' and 'idiot' that many times in one post has roughly the same effect :)

I'm just saying that i've had experienced myself how oppressive it was for me personally. I'm not trying to use it as a general proof. Although, I consider it oppressive and seriously can't understand people with imaginary friends. It's just my opinion, I'm not trying to act like i knew what is right or wrong and if you know that please, illuminate me.

[Stork]

Pantheism isn't even a religion, it's like saying can you be a deist and a marxist, of course you can.

[CommunityBeliever]

If someone proposed a transportation system based on farting

Fart gas could be used to fuel hot air balloons. Surely this sort of transportation system would be in widespread use today if it were not for capitalist suppression.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fart gas could be used to fuel hot air balloons. Surely this sort of transportation system would be in widespread use today if it were not for capitalist suppression.

My understanding is that the primary component of alimentary gas is methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane), which in Earthlike conditions is not a lifting gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_gas), although being the primary compenent of natural gas it can be burned as a fuel.

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ At this point the thread has finally gone down the toilet into the sewer of thread oblivion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ At this point the thread has finally gone down the toilet into the sewer of thread oblivion.

Thanks for contributing. :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

If someone proposed a transportation system based on farting, they would have to show the rest of us how it works if we're to take it as anything other than idle fancy.

Same with magic. If we're to take it as anything other than a fiction, we need evidence for it.

We know the composition of the Lunar regolith because we sent people there and brought samples of it back. That's evidence.

I'm fully with you here. My point is to remind that we take it as an assumption that evidence really means anything in the first place. We have every reason to make that assumption, as reality acts as if it is real. But there is no reason to think that tomorrow we won't figure out that the world is an illusion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm fully with you here. My point is to remind that we take it as an assumption that evidence really means anything in the first place. We have every reason to make that assumption, as reality acts as if it is real. But there is no reason to think that tomorrow we won't figure out that the world is an illusion.

The thing is, even if the world turns out to be an illusion, the level of detail required to fool humans up until that point is literally astronomical.

If that illusion is the doing of an intelligence, I shudder to think of the fearsome nature that such power would grant it.

[hatzel]

Perhaps that fearsome being is none other than humanity itself, hopelessly confined by the fallibility of its own perception...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps that fearsome being is none other than humanity itself, hopelessly confined by the fallibility of its own perception...

I'm sorry, but that's astoundingly anthropocentric arrogance on a truly cosmic scale. Why the fuck should we assume the universe is all about us? We're plains apes living on a tiny speck of rock and dirt orbiting a distinctly average star in a thoroughly mediocre galaxy sitting in a universe that looks surprisingly homogenous in all directions. The universe rolled along nicely for billions of years before life on Earth began, let alone human intelligence.

What's funny is that the very physics that tells us we're nothing special on the cosmological scale also grants us enormous power, both actual and potential. I don't think that's a coincidence.

If the universe is illusory, I see no reason why it should be an illusion intended to fool humans specifically.

[Revolution starts with U]

Dude... G-D told the Devil to put fossils in the earth to test our faith! :lol:

... C'mon... it could happen :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

Words and stuff

Okay, so you didn't actually understand anything to do with what I just said. Let's try again, in more simplistic terms, to be sure that everybody understands what's going on here...

I'm in the desert. I see a mirage on the horizon. I think there's an oasis there. It's not really there. My perception is flawed. The mirage is an illusion. But I don't know. Therefore I think it's real. Because I perceive it. I am fooled.

Now we'll do it again, expanding this to a greater scale...

I'm in the universe. I engage with it. I perceive it in some way. I think it truly is as I perceive it. But perhaps my perception is flawed. Perhaps I have misunderstood the universe. So my understanding is illusionary. Potentially.

The fearsome being we speak of - that thing which presents the illusion to us and could have fooled us for thousands and thousands of years - is no other than humanity, precisely because we place ourselves, or our cognition, at the centre, in declaring our 'truths' about the nature of the cosmos (that is to say, the universe as it exists independent of human perception), when we are instead we are describing the mundus (the universe as it is perceived by humanity). Or, because we believe that our perception is paramount, and true. That how we understand or perceive our surroundings is necessarily accurate, when in fact, our understanding is limited and potentially false.

The universe is only "all about us" inasmuch as we look at it, somehow decide how it is, and declare our perception true. That is, our perception of the universe is (necessarily) all about us, but there is no absolutely assurance that our perception of the universe is identical to the universe as it stands independently. However, we can never engage with it in any other way. We can't engage with it from a non-human perspective, without our understanding being coloured by subjectivity. That's...the point I'm getting at here...nothing to do with the illusion of the universe being created for humans (not sure where I said anything even approaching that, by the way), but by humans. We fool ourselves; if our surroundings are illusory, it is because of our false perception.

[ComradeMan]

Okay, so you didn't actually understand anything to do with what I just said. Let's try again, in more simplistic terms, to be sure that everybody understands what's going on here...

I'm in the desert. I see a mirage on the horizon. I think there's an oasis there. It's not really there. My perception is flawed. The mirage is an illusion. But I don't know. Therefore I think it's real. Because I perceive it. I am fooled.

Nice analogy- if I may add, the mirage is indeed an illusion- but the illusion is not an illusion of an illusion. What you perceive, albeit an illusion, is something in itself.... So if something tangibly causes you to see an illusion that is perceived by your senses, the question is.... what is that something? ;)

[ComradeMan]

Dude... G-D told the Devil to put fossils in the earth to test our faith! :lol:

... C'mon... it could happen :rolleyes:

And what might the tanniyn of the Old Testament/Tanakh be? :rolleyes:;)

[Revolution starts with U]

OMG you are not seriously suggesting humans walked with dinosaurs? What about Griffons?

[hatzel]

OMG you are not seriously suggesting humans walked with dinosaurs?

Well clearly we did because there was a TV documentary thing called Walking with dinosaurs and I watched it so I was totally involved in all that...and I'm a human...that's pretty much how it all went down. The Bible is merely a prophecy of a) the BBC schedule; and b) exactly how you would word that question :)

[ComradeMan]

OMG you are not seriously suggesting humans walked with dinosaurs? What about Griffons?

Check this out...

The Angkor Wat "dinosaur"
http://atlasobscura.com/place/dinosaur-angkor-wat

Check out the Inca dinosaurs represented on ceramic goods too....

Could be fakes? Could be that some dinosaurs survived- hence all the legends we have about dragons and lake monsters. Who knows? If the ceramics are not fake how do we explain that?

In Ancient Egypt too...
http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/DinosaurWorld/AncientCivilizations/Dinosaur_Artwork_in_Ancient_Civilizations.html

(Okay they could be giraffes, I admit!)

Still weird though, isn't it?

[Revolution starts with U]

Being a student of anthropology we spent a lot of times on these. The evidence seems to suggest that these were cases of primitive paleontology. Often you will find a temple that claims to hold the "tooth of the dragon" or something like that; a fossilized dinosaur tooth.

People seem to forget that there has been no major changes in avg brain size or structure in the species homo sapiens sapiens for 200k years. Primitive people are not dumber, just more primitive. So, if they find a fossilized bone, what do you expect them to think about it?

Now... could some dinosaurs have survived and helped to contribute to this legend? Yes, there is no reason to say no. But you would think that some temple somewhere would have kept the body when it was slain.

[ComradeMan]

Being a student of anthropology we spent a lot of times on these. The evidence seems to suggest that these were cases of primitive paleontology. Often you will find a temple that claims to hold the "tooth of the dragon" or something like that; a fossilized dinosaur tooth.

Well in China dinosaur bones were, I believe, called "dragon bones" and I think they were used for medicine too- for at least 2000 years or so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19606626/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/chinese-villagers-ate-dinosaur-dragon-bones/#.TpP7wrJ2PMA

What strikes me about these images, again with the proviso they are not false, it their accuracy. What appears to be a stegosaurus (Angkor Wat) and a triceratops (Inca) are not the usual representations of dragons- usually more serpent like. Secondly the fact that some of the Inca images show people riding the dinosaurs etc is also a bit weird.


Now... could some dinosaurs have survived and helped to contribute to this legend? Yes, there is no reason to say no. But you would think that some temple somewhere would have kept the body when it was slain.

Perhaps that's waiting to be discovered.... :confused:

There are quite a few interesting "anomalies" out there, it's difficult to say whether they are real, fake or just mistaken but it's worth looking into them.

It seems science is beginning to have potential problems with the theory of the mass extinction and the meteorite etc and I wouldn't say we could rule out the survival of one or two dinosaurs, perhaps smaller ones, that may have given rise to the legends of dinosaurs. On the other hand, crocodiles did survive and certain other reptiles like Komodo dragons etc, they also could have given rise to the legends. Imagine an ancient person from the "Old World" seeing an anaconda... :crying: Who knows?

[Zostrianos]

I think one can have indeed religious beliefs and be a Marxist at the same time. With regard to Trotsky's quote, you have to keep in mind that Marxism and Leninism developed during a time when organized religion (the Church above all) still exerted a negative, oppressive influence in society, and in such a context it's easy to lump all aspects of religion into one and dismiss it. I think spirituality is something individualistic, and I see no conflict between it and any revolutionary aspirations, provided one does not hinder the other.

Some of you have mentioned the apparent silliness of "New Age" spirituality. Well, a lot of what comprises it are very ancient philosophies, many of which predate Christianity, and have many profound elements that have nothing to do with the hokum and commercialism of the modern New Age movement. Gnosticism, Hermetism, Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonic philosophy are good examples. Now, you may point out that these philosophies are false and obsolete, and that mystical practices are likewise false and deceptive. However, thousands of people became involved in these movements and have had subjective experiences that validated and confirmed their beliefs. Whether these experiences are simply hallucinations doesn't matter, because they confirm that these mystical movements are indeed useful and have provided fulfillment and happiness to countless people.

The portrayal of man in the Hermetica as a being full of potential, but enslaved and blinded by materialism is very relevant today, and reflects modern society. Most people are entirely absorbed in a vicious cycle, where they work, watch tv, then go out and buy gadgets, clothes, and trinkets to try and make themselves feel happy, all the while remaining slaves to their pleasures and to the capitalist society they are feeding.

"Just as processions passing by in public cannot achieve anything of themselves, though they can be a hindrance to others, in the same way these people are only parading through the cosmos, led astray by pleasures of the body" - Corpus Hermeticum IV

As for alchemy, certain forms of physical alchemy are indeed useful and tested. Spagyrics or herbal alchemy is practiced by many today and allows a better extraction of the medicinal properties of plants. Essentially you take a plant, separate its various components (e.g. flowers, leaves, stalk, roots), put each component through various processes individually, and then bring everything back together into a rectified whole. The usage of alcohol to extract the properties is an essential component; alcohol is the philosophical Mercury, the agent that allows for the extraction of the highest essence of a particular substance.


I will mention in passing that of the first Socialists was the occultist Éliphas Lévi (a former priest), who wrote "Le testament de la liberté" and "L'évangile du peuple" (in 1840 and 1848 respectively), two socialist works decades ahead of their time.

So in conclusion, I think mysticism can be very beneficial to us as Marxists.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well in China dinosaur bones were, I believe, called "dragon bones" and I think they were used for medicine too- for at least 2000 years or so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19606626/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/chinese-villagers-ate-dinosaur-dragon-bones/#.TpP7wrJ2PMA

What strikes me about these images, again with the proviso they are not false, it their accuracy. What appears to be a stegosaurus (Angkor Wat) and a triceratops (Inca) are not the usual representations of dragons- usually more serpent like. Secondly the fact that some of the Inca images show people riding the dinosaurs etc is also a bit weird.



Perhaps that's waiting to be discovered.... :confused:

There are quite a few interesting "anomalies" out there, it's difficult to say whether they are real, fake or just mistaken but it's worth looking into them.

It seems science is beginning to have potential problems with the theory of the mass extinction and the meteorite etc and I wouldn't say we could rule out the survival of one or two dinosaurs, perhaps smaller ones, that may have given rise to the legends of dinosaurs. On the other hand, crocodiles did survive and certain other reptiles like Komodo dragons etc, they also could have given rise to the legends. Imagine an ancient person from the "Old World" seeing an anaconda... :crying: Who knows?

According to my own little hypothesis many of our oldest myths date back to pre 10k bc, basically before the end of the last ice age. Especially in N America, but in other places as well, you hear tale of the past times when "the north wind ruled the world" (who represents the coming of winter).
You get a lot of flood stories too, which destroyed a culture. That would make sense if you think of the many deaths and scatterings of people that would happen if there were rapid flooding of coastal areas (becuz of the glaciers melting) even today. And you see today a lot more people interested in underwater archeology. I think the era of 10k bce will prove to be more cilvized than we currently assume... perhaps just not as stone and metal based.
Also stories like the Garden of Eden I think tie into that "back when we were hunter-gatherers and too stupid to know we were naked" ignorance is bliss idea. And for that area specifically, the last time you had true non-existence of agriculture would have been sometime before 6-7k bce and probably earlier if you include Turkish and Iranian lands.

Not really flushed out well, but, ya. Just my own little idea.

EDIT: Oh ya :D the reason I brought this up... So, what do we know about the natural environment of post 10k bce? The loss of the mega fauna comes to mind. Big giant beavers and squirrells, etc... I think that would play a big role in the development of these ideas.

There is just simply nil archeological evidence to suggest there was any meaningful population of dinosaurs living much longer than 65 million years ago, let alone a couple thousand. Some few dinosaurs did survive. Some of them today we call birds. But after a million years later the evidence of dinosaurs just dries up.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think one can have indeed religious beliefs and be a Marxist at the same time. With regard to Trotsky's quote, you have to keep in mind that Marxism and Leninism developed during a time when organized religion (the Church above all) still exerted a negative, oppressive influence in society, and in such a context it's easy to lump all aspects of religion into one and dismiss it. I think spirituality is something individualistic, and I see no conflict between it and any revolutionary aspirations, provided one does not hinder the other.

I think the evidence is clear that some people have done great things because of, at least in their own minds, their spirituality. So I see no reason to think you cannot be a revleftist and spiritual. I don't think the latter is necessary for the former. But nevertheless...



Some of you have mentioned the apparent silliness of "New Age" spirituality. Well, a lot of what comprises it are very ancient philosophies, many of which predate Christianity, and have many profound elements that have nothing to do with the hokum and commercialism of the modern New Age movement. Gnosticism, Hermetism, Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonic philosophy are good examples. Now, you may point out that these philosophies are false and obsolete, and that mystical practices are likewise false and deceptive. However, thousands of people became involved in these movements and have had subjective experiences that validated and confirmed their beliefs. Whether these experiences are simply hallucinations doesn't matter, because they confirm that these mystical movements are indeed useful and have provided fulfillment and happiness to countless people.

My position is that, just like any other knowledge, it is universal. If all-mind is the all-mind, than the mind is all. We can subject enlightenment to the scientific method. If it turns out that incense and goats blood is not the way to go, we abandon that. We can find out if there is enlightenment, and what really causes it. And we can harness that.
Falling back on "its my belief" and "you didnt believe hard enough" and "god told me so" is just simply not enough for the modern rational and scientific mind.


The portrayal of man in the Hermetica as a being full of potential, but enslaved and blinded by materialism is very relevant today, and reflects modern society. Most people are entirely absorbed in a vicious cycle, where they work, watch tv, then go out and buy gadgets, clothes, and trinkets to try and make themselves feel happy, all the while remaining slaves to their pleasures and to the capitalist society they are feeding.

"Just as processions passing by in public cannot achieve anything of themselves, though they can be a hindrance to others, in the same way these people are only parading through the cosmos, led astray by pleasures of the body" - Corpus Hermeticum IV

Well, they say if you sit around and think about nothing for a while all-mind will come up and show you apprecation for existence; the fact that there is anything is really miraculous ;)

[StoneFrog]

According to my own little hypothesis many of our oldest myths date back to pre 10k bc, basically before the end of the last ice age. Especially in N America, but in other places as well, you hear tale of the past times when "the north wind ruled the world" (who represents the coming of winter).
You get a lot of flood stories too, which destroyed a culture. That would make sense if you think of the many deaths and scatterings of people that would happen if there were rapid flooding of coastal areas (becuz of the glaciers melting) even today. And you see today a lot more people interested in underwater archeology. I think the era of 10k bce will prove to be more cilvized than we currently assume... perhaps just not as stone and metal based.
Also stories like the Garden of Eden I think tie into that "back when we were hunter-gatherers and too stupid to know we were naked" ignorance is bliss idea. And for that area specifically, the last time you had true non-existence of agriculture would have been sometime before 6-7k bce and probably earlier if you include Turkish and Iranian lands.

Not really flushed out well, but, ya. Just my own little idea.

EDIT: Oh ya :D the reason I brought this up... So, what do we know about the natural environment of post 10k bce? The loss of the mega fauna comes to mind. Big giant beavers and squirrells, etc... I think that would play a big role in the development of these ideas.

There is just simply nil archeological evidence to suggest there was any meaningful population of dinosaurs living much longer than 65 million years ago, let alone a couple thousand. Some few dinosaurs did survive. Some of them today we call birds. But after a million years later the evidence of dinosaurs just dries up.

Well some say that there was a golden age 10k BCE and older, in which there was a height of technology. I'm not saying super race that had computers and such, just had a far greater understanding and knew how to implement it better than the periods to follow. I agree that there was a very good understanding of astrology coming from that era, but some use evidence such as one of the pieces shown for dinosaurs, is made out of a stone that would never have been able to be carved to that degree because its harder than copper and other common tools that the Egyptians used. So they make the case its an object passed down from an older era, and because the stone is so durable it can last basically unharmed. I'm still a bit skeptical about this, to say the least.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't quite go that far. Maybe. But I await the findings of some of these coastal discoveries coming out of japan and india.

What I do know is that tool making culture of pre-historic man has a very far-reaching range, of the time of 30-10k bce there are like 3 in the world.
All linguistic and mythological evidence points to a proto-indoeuropic culture sharing a common root from India across to surround the mediterranian.

We had boats. We know about the Chicago culture who had a very big city made entirely of wood. Why would it be so hard of a stretch to think there was a culture based somewhere that had enough primitive technological capacity to traverse the globe in reasonable amounts of time? Thor Hyerdall (?) did it, we know it's possible. The engineering of a swivel mast, the foundation of world naval travel, is complex, but the technology is not.

Maybe they built the sphinx and the pyramids, i don't know. But that is irrelevant to all the other evidence that points to a semi-global culture that was lost to the flooding of the coast lines.

[ComradeMan]

There is just simply nil archeological evidence to suggest there was any meaningful population of dinosaurs living much longer than 65 million years ago, let alone a couple thousand. Some few dinosaurs did survive. Some of them today we call birds. But after a million years later the evidence of dinosaurs just dries up.

If we ignore the anomalies.... ;)

I don't know what a meaninful population of dinosaurs really implies- remember we were talking about survivals. Let's not overestimate the fossil record either- we don't have a lot compared to everything that might have existed at any one time and we may also be talking about very small populations here.

I am not saying that dinosaurs definitely did survive and definitely did give rise to the legends about dragons and things, but I am not going to rule it out as a "possible"- especially given the ongoing reports of sea/lake monsters that seem to resemble dinosaurs.

As for your other comment- wasn't there a case of Egyptian statuettes found in a Pre-Columbian Era tomb or something? Some Egyptian mummies are also supposed to have been found to contain traces of coca and nicotine... which is interesting and may suggest Pre-Columbian contact between the Old World and the New World.

[Astarte]

If we ignore the anomalies.... ;)

I don't know what a meaninful population of dinosaurs really implies- remember we were talking about survivals. Let's not overestimate the fossil record either- we don't have a lot compared to everything that might have existed at any one time and we may also be talking about very small populations here.

I am not saying that dinosaurs definitely did survive and definitely did give rise to the legends about dragons and things, but I am not going to rule it out as a "possible"- especially given the ongoing reports of sea/lake monsters that seem to resemble dinosaurs.

As for your other comment- wasn't there a case of Egyptian statuettes found in a Pre-Columbian Era tomb or something? Some Egyptian mummies are also supposed to have been found to contain traces of coca and nicotine... which is interesting and may suggest Pre-Columbian contact between the Old World and the New World.

I've never been a big Dino fan. Maybe that's why I also have never considered surviving anomalous Dinos as being mistaken for dragons. :D

I have heard of the coca and nicotine traces being found in Egyptian mummies - I am less skeptical when it comes to the idea of some long lost "Atlantis".

I am more apt to blame "the aliens". :cool: Since so many ancient creation myths say their deities came down from the sky and created them. But I try not to talk about that unless I am really drunk and talk to someone face to face so I can appear as insane as possible.

[ComradeMan]

I've never been a big Dino fan. Maybe that's why I also have never considered surviving anomalous Dinos as being mistaken for dragons. :D

I'm more inclined to believe in dinosaur survivals than aliens... I'll say why below...


I have heard of the coca and nicotine traces being found in Egyptian mummies - I am less skeptical when it comes to the idea of some long lost "Atlantis".

I'm not so keen on Atlantis either- the geology of it? The fact that Plato may have made it up- or at least was very creative with ancient legends of a lost civilisation. I'm more inclined to believe in a lost civilisation theory (perhaps) than the Island of Atlantis according to legend to be honest.


I am more apt to blame "the aliens". :cool: Since so many ancient creation myths say their deities came down from the sky and created them. But I try not to talk about that unless I am really drunk and talk to someone face to face so I can appear as insane as possible.

Unless the aliens possess technology that can allow them to travel the distances required in a reasonable timeframe and thus "break" the laws of physics as we know them I'm not convinced about them either.

There is definitely something "weird" but I don't see why it has to be "aliens" all the time. I have my own crackpot theory... if you want to ask me go ahead... :lol:

I think of all the theories above, dino-survival is the most reasonable. Crocodiles and alligators survived why not smaller dinosaurs that might have got bigger again after the cataclysm?

[Revolution starts with U]

I fully understand the incompleteness of the fossil record. But you would think over 60 million years some fossil somewhere would show up to let us know there were surviving dinosaurs. I'm not saying it did happen. Just that the evidence is against it.

On Atlantis; I tend to think Plato mixed 2 legends together. I think much of the specifics of his atlantis were based on the Minoans. But I think the idea of a civilization before history is still there, merely because there is so much evidence from totally unconnected cultures that support it.

[Astarte]

Unless the aliens possess technology that can allow them to travel the distances required in a reasonable timeframe and thus "break" the laws of physics as we know them I'm not convinced about them either.

There is definitely something "weird" but I don't see why it has to be "aliens" all the time. I have my own crackpot theory... if you want to ask me go ahead... :lol:


Yeah... I'd like to hear your "crackpot theory", since I will divulge mine, haha...

I am more convince by the "extradimensional" hypothesis than "extraterrestrial", i.e. we are dealing with "energy beings" or "angels, demons, devis, asura, djinn", etc ...

The problem with the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in addition to what you mentioned above is also that there is not one shred of physical evidence, yet all kinds of circumstantial evidence - in the modern era tens of thousands of eye witnesses, recorded images of "UFOs", and again, the consistency of ancient myths in dealing with creator beings coming down from the sky.

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/arguments.pdf

If what Vallee says in his essay is even approaching the truth of "whats going on", it would have radical implications for every aspect of our understanding of human life and society.

I think this is also why so many new religions that have appeared are "UFO cults", since the archetype of the UFO fits in with that of the ancient collective understandings of "demons and angels" so well. It is essentially just an update in appearances of how we perceive these beings - they once masqueraded as elves, or dragons, or mythical creatures, etc, today these psychic phantasms appear as our modern collective unconsciousness deems appropriate - highly evolved (large brained) creatures flying in highly advanced craft from another world.

[ComradeMan]

I fully understand the incompleteness of the fossil record. But you would think over 60 million years some fossil somewhere would show up to let us know there were surviving dinosaurs. I'm not saying it did happen. Just that the evidence is against it.

You would, but we've only really been analysing fossils seriously for 150-200 years and so who knows how many "dragon bones" were made into Chinese medicine for example? Plus, I repeat, we don't have a lot of fossils really compared to what there was and new species are also being discovered all the time- even now. I'm more interested in how the legends could be linked to dinosaurs, or perhaps even crocodiles or komodo dragons when climates were different. As I said before, it's all speculation.

On the other hand (conspiracy alert :lol: ) can you imagine the shit that would go down if they found "recent" dinosaurs? ;)


On Atlantis; I tend to think Plato mixed 2 legends together. I think much of the specifics of his atlantis were based on the Minoans. But I think the idea of a civilization before history is still there, merely because there is so much evidence from totally unconnected cultures that support it.

I don't know why he would do that as the Minoans were well-known to the Greeks, Theseus and so on. It is a theory that has been put forward though...


Yeah... I'd like to hear your "crackpot theory", since I will divulge mine, haha...

Okay, basically during the period of the dinosaurs intelligent technological beings evolved, they reached far higher levels of sophistication than we have reached. Either because of atmospheric climate change or the iminent doom of a meteorite they left this planet in spaceships to weather the storm. When they returned the atmosphere was no longer suitable for them so they have underground bases and/or undersea ones. Nibiru/Planet X- is a giant dinolien (dino-alien) death star that orbits the sun in such a way as not to be seen and not big enough to show any gravitational anomaly. These dinoliens have interracted with the history of the earth but have a code of ethics and also practical needs that mean they are content as they are now.... for now that is. It's more complicated than this but there's some stuff you don't just go shouting on the web... :D


I am more convince by the "extradimensional" hypothesis than "extraterrestrial", i.e. we are dealing with "energy beings" or "angels, demons, devis, asura, djinn", etc ...

How does this work? Even if there are up to 10 dimensions, the first 4 are kind of obligatory aren't they? Also- say they could be from another dimension and not share our "four" could they manifest themselves in ours or wouldn't they die like fish out of water?

[Astarte]

How does this work? Even if there are up to 10 dimensions, the first 4 are kind of obligatory aren't they? Also- say they could be from another dimension and not share our "four" could they manifest themselves in ours or wouldn't they die like fish out of water?

Interesting, perhaps if they exist they are more "supra-dimensional" that is, can function in the first 4 dimensions in a transient way, but find their natural habit in one of the higher ones - to take the fish out of water analogy a step further - they could be as an amphibian. Interestingly, this "10 dimensions" theory, can be paralleled in a way to the "Spheres of Heaven" astral-theory of gnosticism and hermeticism.

Scary shit in terms of the Dinoliens ... reminds me of something out of "Chrono Trigger".

[Revolution starts with U]

Chrono Trigger is my #3 favorite game of all time. What really surprised me was that years later I become a DBZ fan, and it is the same artwork :lol:
(1. WoW 2. Final Fantasy 10 3. Chrono Trigger, in case you were wondering... can you tell I like RPGs? :lol:)

I've never understood the whole idea of inter-dimensional. People hear dimension and think universe far too often. A dimension is just a shape; lenght width depth time, shapes. Were there other dimensions, they would just be additional shapes to the universe, not other places. This means the dimension would be right here right now just seemingly unobtainable by beings of the regular 3 dimensions.
So you have to think of it as "paradimensional." The aliens/angels/gods would be living right here right now alongside us, perhaps even able to see us (remember they can live in all the shapes) and only manifest in the mundane plane occasionally... which, how could you represent yourself 2 dimensionally really? You can draw a picture, but it is still 3 dimensional, there is depth to that ink.

There's a list of the dimensions according to some tribe in central/south america. I would check it out. I'll try to find it, but if you want to try yourself; the person's blog it is on is connected to Joe Rogan... somehow. It was something a friend of mine posted on fb.
I personally think this is a modern concept slapped onto an old practice, as is common in tribal societies. (Ever seen a big costume dance ritual where one of the guys is wearing Nike shorts? :lol: Or a Super Bowl t-shirt featuring the loser as the winner :laugh:)
But the core is probably a very old practice anyway, even without the modern jargon. So, it's pretty interesting. :thumbup1:

[Revolution starts with U]

http://www.warriorpoet.us/2011/08/02/to-the-8th-dimension-and-back-again/

[Astarte]

Chrono Trigger is my #3 favorite game of all time. What really surprised me was that years later I become a DBZ fan, and it is the same artwork :lol:
(1. WoW 2. Final Fantasy 10 3. Chrono Trigger, in case you were wondering... can you tell I like RPGs? :lol:)


I've always been a big rpg fan too, my favorite of all time is a toss up between FF4 and FF6, but the Suikoden series and the obscure "Lufia" series comes close though too :D, ... since we're on the topic, RPGs always struck me as kind of "Blanquist" since you have this party of a handful or two characters, and they are usually trying to stop an evil statist entity (an empire or a corporation as in FF7) from destroying the world ... they're definitely different from your typical shoot'em up game, almost like reading mythology.


I've never understood the whole idea of inter-dimensional. People hear dimension and think universe far too often. A dimension is just a shape; lenght width depth time, shapes. Were there other dimensions, they would just be additional shapes to the universe, not other places. This means the dimension would be right here right now just seemingly unobtainable by beings of the regular 3 dimensions.
So you have to think of it as "paradimensional." The aliens/angels/gods would be living right here right now alongside us, perhaps even able to see us (remember they can live in all the shapes) and only manifest in the mundane plane occasionally... which, how could you represent yourself 2 dimensionally really? You can draw a picture, but it is still 3 dimensional, there is depth to that ink.

Yeah! Exactly, that is more like what I was trying to get at for sure. Reminds me of H.P. Lovecraft's old line "Nor is it to be thought, that man is either the oldest or the last of earth's masters, or that the common bulk of life and substance walks alone. The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, and the Old Ones shall be. Not in the spaces we know, but between them, They walk serene and primal, undimensioned and to us unseen."


There's a list of the dimensions according to some tribe in central/south america. I would check it out. I'll try to find it, but if you want to try yourself; the person's blog it is on is connected to Joe Rogan... somehow. It was something a friend of mine posted on fb.
I personally think this is a modern concept slapped onto an old practice, as is common in tribal societies. (Ever seen a big costume dance ritual where one of the guys is wearing Nike shorts? :lol: Or a Super Bowl t-shirt featuring the loser as the winner :laugh:)
But the core is probably a very old practice anyway, even without the modern jargon. So, it's pretty interesting. :thumbup1:

Cool, I am gonna check that link.

[Revolution starts with U]

I've always been a big rpg fan too, my favorite of all time is a toss up between FF4 and FF6, but the Suikoden series and the obscure "Lufia" series comes close though too :D, ... since we're on the topic, RPGs always struck me as kind of "Blanquist" since you have this party of a handful or two characters, and they are either trying to stop an evil statist entity (an empire or a corporation as in FF7) from destroying the world ... they're definitely different from your typical shoot'em up game, almost like reading mythology.

Suikoden 1 is actually my 5 (4 is Vandal Hearts, rpg/strategy). I loved the idea of trying to get all the characters, and the little mini battles within the game.
That's why I have always like RPGs tho, is for the story. The dialogue has to be intriguing or its just a boor. Of course the gameplay has to be somewhat fun, but not that much. Just give me a good story :lol:





Yeah! Exactly, that is more like what I was trying to get at for sure. Reminds me of H.P. Lovecraft's old line "Nor is it to be thought, that man is either the oldest or the last of earth's masters, or that the common bulk of life and substance walks alone. The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, and the Old Ones shall be. Not in the spaces we know, but between them, They walk serene and primal, undimensioned and to us unseen."

:thumbup1:
WoW integrates A LOT of Lovecraft. I've never read any of it. But playin WoW and listening to Metallica, I get the general gist :lol: