Conspiracynut said...
Yes, Fisher, regarding numbers as symbols!- Just as letters are symbols, words, stop signs! Before any of it makes any sense, we have to agree what the symbols mean.
- Btw, null and 0 are not the same. i can hear some programmers groaning aloud but it is not! It's simply a placeholder; 0 means nothing, null means 'no thing [something can be added later].'
- Glad you posted this DV, it started a good discussion, but science is not a belief. When data no longer supports a scientific conclusion, that conclusion changes. Am i the only person noticing that the abramic faiths (judaism, islam, christianity) seem to be the only faiths that do not change and develop? O, wait, buddhism and taoism are philosophies, not religion; but even the hindu faith is evolving to keep up with the growing intellect of the populace...can anyone think of any other religion that isn't developing as we ourselves develop, as a species?
- Intellectual Insurgent said...
but even the hindu faith is evolving to keep up with the growing intellect of the populace...can anyone think of any other religion that isn't developing as we ourselves develop, as a species?- This presumes a growth in intellect. It seems to me humanity is actually devolving when it comes to intellect; getting dumber and dumber with each generation. How can people who have no skills, are terrified of their machinery and gadgets because they don't understand how they operate be flattered with such thing as an intellect?
- With regard to a religion or philosophy "evolving" to keep up with humanity's intellect, the juxtaposition of the terms religion and evolution in your statement is quite interesting. But what exactly does that mean?
- Who says there is any evolution of intellect happening? What does that evolved state look like? Who is defining it for us?
- Is it possible there is no evolution of intellect happening but, rather, a destruction of religion and morality?
- Seems that this conundrum is a similar mind trick as when you are sitting in a stationary train, but get the sensation of moving because the train on the next track is moving. You don't know which is moving and which is standing still.
9 comments:
"Is it possible there is no evolution of intellect happening but, rather, a destruction of religion and morality?"
Both religion and morality are devolved intellect in the first place. Brainwashing.
They were given as surrogate controllers by the power groups, to control people in a so called 'civil' society.
Many people that are control freaks love these abstract concepts though.
Mostly they are not 'thinkers' but believers in one brand of hog wash or another.
Religion is the selling of blue sky and songs to the moon.
With regard to a religion or philosophy "evolving" to keep up with humanity's intellect, the juxtaposition of the terms religion and evolution in your statement is quite interesting. But what exactly does that mean?
Who says there is any evolution of intellect happening? What does that evolved state look like? Who is defining it for us?
Is it possible there is no evolution of intellect happening but, rather, a destruction of religion and morality?
I think you've nicely illustrated the conundrum Dina. My answer to these questions is that there are obvious declines taking place in the larger culture, and there are declines taking place in the cultures of psychological competency traditionally embedded in the larger culture(s).
Formerly, religious groupings - including the Abrahamic - were organized around a basic common model that seems to me at least - to have preserved their utility as repositories of psychological competency.
The specific competencies I have in mind are mnemonic and emotional - as distinct from intellectual - which are indispensable to the process of full psychological development.
Using the example of the orthodox church, you have an esoteric grouping comprised of monastics whose praxis is full time and informed by a common technical basis - one example of which is the Philokalia.
Then you have the mesoteric grouping of priests and nuns who serve, advise, and lead the faithful, while providing and administering support for the esoteric grouping. The example I posted the other day from father Romanides on neurobiological sickness - perfectly exemplifies the role of patristic guidance in the life of the orthodox believer.
Lastly, you have the exoteric grouping of believers who are relatively casual about their commitment to the undertaking, but who for whatever reason are moved by either their upbringing or affinity to associate themselves with the efforts of the church which is viewed as the body of Christ.
The same types of formations are evident in Judaica, Islam, Budhdism, and Vedanta - and are probably fairly universal. I believe that these formations likely reflect something universal about how the human psyche operates in its aggregate structures.
I believe that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is fraud within the cultures of competency themselves these aggregate formations and the compentencies that they formerly preserved, have deteriorated fairly precipitously in the face of the dopaminergic onslaught.
Almost the entire structure of what passes for Christianity in America, for example, is devoid of the interior structures that formerly buttressed the life and activities of the traditional religious organizations. Protestant American churches are totally devoid of practices whose aim is the development of memory and affect. They are by-and-large frauds perpetrated on the tendency toward neurobiological sickness - kind of a lowest common denominator parasitism.
"I think you've nicely illustrated the conundrum Dina. My answer to these questions is that there are obvious declines taking place in the larger culture, and there are declines taking place in the cultures of psychological competency traditionally embedded in the larger culture(s).
Formerly, religious groupings - including the Abrahamic - were organized around a basic common model that seems to me at least - to have preserved their utility as repositories of psychological competency."
Huh ?
You are referring to the great well of brainwashed concepts and propaganda that has terrorized humans for thousands of years.
The method of tricking people into being willing fodder for wars and shoves down the throats and brains of people 'how to live their lives' according to someones opinion.
You are a cheerleader for and of the occult.
Skippy, skippy, skippy, skippy, skippy....., one man's occultism is another man's exercise manual.
Getting down to particulars Mr. Technut, both newtonian and quantum mechanics are entirely impenetrable to YOU, yet you don't refer to them as "occultic"? Now why is that?
Your fanboy professions about "technocracy" nearly always take the name of science in vain, but I'd bet your personal grasp of the language of mathematics and science is so limited that the bulk of scientific endeavor - beyond anything encountered at the 8th grade level - is ENTIRELY beyond your reach. IOW - it's as occulted to you as if it was written in Aramaic. Which means that everything that you profess about your beloved though non-existent scientific methods of social organization is on no sounder footing than your typical run of the mill bible buddy's wide-eyed and frothy-lipped professions of faith in the life ever after!
By your antics on this blog Skip, the only thing you've managed to demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever is the fragmentary and hopelessly lopsided state of your own psychological development.
My my how some people like to play the Guru.
Number one * I don`t care what you think.
Number two * Google Willard Gibbs probably the greatest of all American scientists. That is my jumping off point Mr. Occult Bozo.
And, I am not impressed with your intellectual pissing contest, number three.
Is that Binary enough for you?
three points is ternary you ignorant bee-hotch...,
Too bad it does not snow much there. You could watch your streaks when enamored with your intellectual pissing contests.
Oh well.
skipper, if only you had a bit more self-control and self-esteem you could be making allies instead of enemies.
I'm not intrinsically opposed to what you're promoting, but you work so hard at generating antipathy that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.
Instead of representing the cause that you profess, you play the poster-child for rejecting all that technocratic mess....,
Thats the smartest thing you have said for a while cnu.
Heres the rub. Its not about me, and it is not going to be about me. I am glad that you are beginning to see a little into our program now.
You actually seem like the type that would/will resonate with it.
It is so different than any thing else that it is hard for people to wrap their minds around it.
I come here for fun and entertainment and to relax mostly.
This IS the internet and not meant to be taken so seriously on a pop culture blog such as this.
D.V. is a good host. He`s my boy in a way.
I do a lot of serious stuff and this little blog lets me pull out the stops and get to having some fun.
I read through and admire a lot of the stuff you are talking about in regard to Ouspensky/Gurdjieff and others. I have read ALL and Everything of that stuff, if you know what I mean.
I have had a lot of fun with them in the past, and also now.
Gurdjieff was familiar with Technocracy by the way. Very familiar. There was a cross current in the two groups.
You have probably noticed that I am not a nice person by now. That is mostly a rhetorical polemic stance ala Isocrates/Demosthenes dialectic that I use to shock people.
It is merely a debating aspect.
I follow that method as both Gurdjieff and Demosthenes used.
A suggestion : Rather than trying to tell someone like me, who does not care, that I need more self control or self esteem, try to let go of being a moralist and a preacher.
Technocracy offers a whole new world of ideas that are viable.
Post a Comment