I'm extremely sorry for the last post but the intention behind it was not to hurt anybody in regard to this topic. Yes I know the forum's rules and I still respect each and every members in this discussion board and will continue to do so but when people start 'preaching' of certain things again and again with no new words/thoughts, it becomes intolerable .What I'm trying to say that let's take for granted that there are physical phenomena and that there are metaphysical phenomena. For example, I ask this because it appears that any interaction that takes place in the physical realm would be a physical interaction. By similar reasoning, any interaction that takes place in the metaphysical world would have to be a metaphysical reaction. If both of the above assumptions are true, then it is not possible for the physical and the metaphysical to interact - since it couldn't happen in the physical realm, and it couldn't happen in the metaphysical (which encompasses anything other than the physical) realm. The Scriber-Bantam English Dictionary defines;. metaphysic(al): adj. 1. (pert. to) branch of philosophy dealing with the nature, character, and causes of being and knowing,Highly abstract and overly theoretical, the existence of God, ect.; 2. (pert. to) abstract speculative philosophy in general Does not seem to be applicable to - physical: adj. 1. relating to physics and physical science; 2. material as opposed to moral or spiritual . That's what I'm opposing to- nothing else and again sorry if my last or any of the reply hurt anybody's feeling. thank you all for this discussion sid_16.
My thoughts Sid .. What I am about to say is an attempt to communicate with you and only that .. Please, if you are referring to me with regards to preaching as you mentioned in your post it is my wish that you won't interpret what I am about to say as that (preaching) however in all earnestness I have no control over how you interpret the words I choose or the spin you may or may not put on them .. My only recourse in the event of a communication break down is to continue to do my best improving my efforts where I can and try again .. Certainly there have been many repeated attempts in communication here some successful and some not as I see it .. Your words "but when people start 'preaching' of certain things again and again with no new words/thoughts, it becomes intolerable" I am reminded of what a friend (Sid) has posted in his sig "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." Carl Jung Sid if you are attempting an experiment in one of your classes there are certain prerequisites that are required in order to hopefully get to a predicted result, are there not ? .. This experiment in communication that you and I as well as others here on this forum are involved in is changing the idea of communication as we previously knew it however the success of this experiment is still dependent on the basic prerequisites of respect of each other and sincere and earnest desire to communicate .. I am exited at the possibilities .. As the "Qubit" enters our computing awareness global communication possibilities are mind blowingly expanded .. Sid like I said in a previous post .. I think it's important we get this communication thing off the ground in a "Good way" .. What say you ? You said "If both of the above assumptions are true, then it is not possible for the physical and the metaphysical to interact - since it couldn't happen in the physical realm, and it couldn't happen in the metaphysical (which encompasses anything other than the physical) realm." One brief point from my perspective , I do not make that assumption .. The physical and metaphysical influence/interact which maybe where we should continue our discussion .. but I have to go for now .. Peace edit : Sid try to apply the idea of "quantum wholeism" as presented in MJ's link to the merger (interconnectedness) of the physical and metaphysical .. For me this was never an abstract idea and now for Science they have embraced it ..
@Yen Do remember when you and I had the opportunity to discuss plants in the context of their healing abilities and my emphasis on the localized surrounding environment during the course of it’s growing and the significance this played in the ultimate healing potential of the plant for those who lived locally .. We discussed also the significance of how the plant was harvested .. The point of our discussion was how would you be able to maintain that healing potential if you took that plant and grew it elsewhere given it’s history would be interrupted of course we never got to finish our discussion .. I didn’t have the scientific vocabulary at the time to further make my points but I do now I believe ..So let me try and thanks again to MJ for the link which eventually led me to this .. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unil.ch%2Fwebdav%2Fsite%2Fphilo%2Fshared%2FDocsPerso%2FEsfeldMichael%2F1999%2FJCS99.pdf&ei=4J2SUcqDAbb54APKmoDACA&usg=AFQjCNEdf5YGgDqJc24o62-q8JLcSfK1EQ [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]"One can bite the bullet of Schrödinger’s cat and von Neumann’s chain and conceive[/FONT] [FONT=&]quantum holism in such a way that it extends to all physical systems. I refer to this position as[/FONT] [FONT=&]the option for universal quantum holism: quantum theory including the superposition[/FONT] [FONT=&]principle and the Schrödinger dynamics (or a relativistic generalization of this dynamics) has[/FONT] [FONT=&]universal application in the physical realm. [/FONT]The physical world is a huge quantum system whose internal structure consists in ubiquitous entanglement.[FONT=&] The claim thus is that biological[/FONT] [FONT=&]systems, macroscopic instruments, and common-sense objects (such as trees, tables, and cats),[/FONT] [FONT=&]have in fact states that are entangled with the states of many other systems. This claim has the[/FONT] [FONT=&]following implication: theories of higher level systems, such as theories of chemistry,[/FONT] [FONT=&]biology, physiology, etc., as well as common sense do not describe things as they are[/FONT] [FONT=&]objectively, since nothing like entanglement is acknowledged in these theories.[/FONT]" My traditional beliefs have always been along the lines of everything being connected but I wasn't using the correct word when speaking to Science people .. I shall never forget the word " entangled " .. Who knew ? I have so many thoughts on this and it's relationship to traditional native medicine but that's for another time .. Thanks to Sid for starting this thread because I/We would would not be at this point without him ..
It's heart-warming to see how many of you (and how much!) are trying so hard to get through to TS!! Alas, until she gets through to herself, none of you stand a single chance, sadly... Keep trying, though, it's a cool effort and in the effort we stand or we fall!
I did not mean to imply that 'religion' means following (although I was very unclear in my words), nor that shamans would promote this. What I would say is that there is a tendency to follow in the presence of a strong and/or insightful personality (charisma). To think each member of a tribe is a shaman goes too far, as evidenced by tribes found in modern times where usually only one or two people have the position of shaman (although shamanistic practices and mindset may live among the people in general, to an extent). And I agree, the shaman or seer would not organize a religion. Christ did not either. It is people (yes, one might say the sheepish kind ) that make organized religions.
A few personal thoughts/experiences on shamanism and religion .. The health/well being of a congregation, church, community, or tribe is dependent on how it views, elects. delegates, and elevates a person to a position of leadership and how each individual views their individual responsibilities/duty to the whole .. If a single person is able to assert themselves into a leadership position through self proclaimed power rather than the active pursuit of a collective bodies voice the result is the individuals will/influence is surrendered .. Where I have difficulty assigning the "sheep status" to the individual with relationship to religion is when the individual is born into preordained oppression .. It is my experience our tribal responsibilities/influence include all those individuals as well as those living things that are oppressed .. So when we have our tribal councils our intent is directed towards seeing their connection to the tree of life even if they presently are unaware of that connection .. That is what is meant by "all my relations" .. If you are willing to at least to think about scientifically the idea of "entanglement" as posted above you may see the power of that collective intent .. Make no mistake there are other tribes who approach their responsibilities to the whole in the same manner ... My personal thoughts/experiences on the Shaman .. When a child is born into a tribe it is the collective responsibility of the tribe to recognize the gifts that it brings and provide an environment where their gifts can be developed .. So for me that is how the Shaman comes to be Shaman .. His/Her responsibilities/influence is directly proportional to the collective health/intention of the tribe as a whole and their willingness to grow one (Shaman) .. On a side note .. Shamanism is not for the dimensionally curious such curiosity without guidance can have significant unintended consequences to the individual as well as their community .. Thanks for letting me share and thanks to those nameless ones who make this website work
To be clear, I don't actively think along the lines of people being 'sheepish', it was more a reference to TS's depiction and the tendency of people to avert responsibility for their own lives. To live fully in the here and now, it requires a lot of strength and courage. It is easier to flow along with cultural ways and lifestyles, because you don't have to think originally, nor stick your neck out in the uncertainty of existence too much. I think the main motivator is not laziness, it is fear. Modern society has polished over the hard questions/edges, put some bondo over the holes in conception and spray painted it to look like part of the 'way of life we all know we want'. Well, no. It's like going from Jimi Hendrix to Beyonce/Jay-Z. If you know the wild mountain cry, you won't be fooled by little money-puppy yelps. Mt. Rainier is an ff'ing vulcano, it's not a 'pleasing scene'.
I personally never took it that way for me your intent was/is clear .. I only meant to point out where compassion (for me) is a part of my "civic duties" when viewing the religiously oppressed .. I give thanks to those who came before who embraced the same mind set for without that intention I would not be here ..
Yes, for sure that point was not lost on me and very much appreciated For those who would consider this off topic I apologize however please consider "[FONT=&]universal quantum holism"[/FONT]
God and Free Will Going back on track You can look at this differently too, since God can do no evil then God didn't create evil. Maybe there are two Gods one of good and one of evil?!
Human freedom may be akin to fenced playground freedom. It would be a highly conditional type of freedom. UNLESS in our essence we have also shaped the world we live in (if there is no absolute division between nature and self). Hence, a deeper question may be, what is our true nature (conditional and/or unconditional -- hence "ye are gods" and "in the image of god he created them" and "greater than these will you do" would be considerations, if indeed you would quote the Bible as in the video). So if you want to get back on 'track' it is important to determine first if you're on the right track/asking the right questions. I'm not saying I am asking the right questions, but I am saying that continuing a discussion without analyzing and considering the extent of the words and concepts used, is not going to yield answers as encompassing as the questions. BTW, talking about Jimi Hendrix, if properly understood, is also talking about human freedom (creativity as THE definition of that). So why did you think we weren't on track?
@R29k This video is the same argument you have been presenting only in a different package .. Is it not? .. The Bible's interpretation of God is flawed and incomplete IMHO given that King Constantine's influence/money was responsible for first 50 or so copies of the Bible .. It like looking at current events through the lense of Fox News .. I think the conversation has evolved well past the narrow constraints of the religious definition of God .. Free will however is being openly debated .. It would seem that for the current discussion (this page) you will have to take the time to update your views with respect to the latest posts and respond accordingly .. If "back on track " means returning to already covered points that would be pointless would it not? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say with regards to the theme of the thread after viewing MJ's post and it's link http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...ot-free/page20?p=754591&viewfull=1#post754591 as well as http://http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...62-q8JLcSfK1EQ
I’ve read that PDF. My respect to the author. It shows that western science / Philosophy don’t need to be stuck at the old fashioned Descartes (Cartesian dualism) and “cogito ergo sum” . I had posted my thoughts about at the corresponding thread. It correlates to Newton’s dual and deterministic concept of the world, which we should put ad acta when wanting a progress in ‘perceiving the reality’. Funny enough is that the eastern Philosophy of Vedanta had already that concept ages ago. The idea of Maya, the illusionary detached observer and the not-observer, the illusionary world. Their cultural influence and the terms that are used there are not accessible to western culture and hence ridiculed by western Philosophy. But that is a fact Gorski doesn’t want to hear and I have to blame him for that. The fact that actually western Philosophy still lives in the dark ages where an untouchable individual (Philosopher) can determine ‘the truth’ and where the idea of an independent individual is a sign of progress and must be enhanced instead of to be declared as illusionary idea. Science suffers from the same disease, though. Quantum mechanics offers an ability to the westerners to get a more holistic ideology. “One thing cannot be separate to another” And the PDF also shows up that Quantum mechanics and Heisenberg are not alone at home there where the atoms live. It has consequences for the idea of mind and observer and reality. (Somebody replied to me at another thread, I cannot remember, that both just apply to invisible and fast particles almost at light speed) Also the idea in some minds here in the thread to feed separation is contrary to a holistic ideology (Science / spirituality/ metaphysics/ religion). Ken Wilber has made an impressive approach: His integral ideology and the four quadrants of a Holon. A book recommendation of myself which is conform to a holistic ideology since he speaks of Holon. “A Brief History of Everything” @Redroad. Yes I remember that very well since it is ever an ‘issue’ of my daily work. The term entangled I know from Schrödinger. (German: verschränkt) The quantum eraser experiment I had posted exactly creates 2 entangled photons. The experiment shows impressively that the which way (welcher-weg) information is communicated in no time means with infinite velocity. It is that what Einstein said it is “spooky action at a distance’ and actually disproves him very impressive. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html . http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...stance-at-least-10000-times-faster-than-light Entangled systems can communicate in no time. And entangled systems don’t have to be two photons. I share the opinion that a value of velocity different to infinity is due to a measurement delay (error). It communicates in no time. And what’s even more impressing it seems that distance does not matter. This is what I have meant: An individual constantly abstracts from the infinite domain by assigning the events to an idea of an individual. The world appears as illusionary idea relative to an illusionary individual. One becomes many. By remaining the ‘pure state’ objective description’ is possible. But the entangled system describes ‘itself any time already’. So reality cannot be communicated, it is... experienced as being. So a description of things as they objectively are, because the entanglement becomes put aside is verbally and literally not possible. I used the phrase to see the reality as it is. (means anything is entangled, it has the one life) Entangled systems communicate no matter what distance. This would mean assuming a plant is entangled to its origin, that no matter how far away the plant is moved away, anything what happens has also an influence to the origin itself and vice versa. In this regard it would be interesting to debate if the ability to heal can be deprived when removed from the origin. Or if the healing ability is entangled to the sick person who creates an entanglement to the plant wherever it has grown. I mean when is an entanglement put aside? When I try to explain ‘the’ healing effect of it? When I remove it from its origin? Since we can have infinite systems which are entangled I have to come to the conclusion it ‘ends’ in one point: The self, it is the entanglement itself. Actually the plant heals myself when any objectifying process to confuse myself with not-myself ends. When "Abstraction from entanglement by the observer" ends. I have written about the thrown coin and the omniscience of god. God lets it be in the present as it is. He knows the reality of the coin by not putting the entanglement aside (deciding it's top or bottom). When deciding for top the not-top is communicated without time and a result of putting entanglement aside. One truth, 100% result. Or as soon a decision is made the wave function which is a function of probability, becomes a particle with a determinable place and condition. Or like Schrödinger's cat: She is dead 0.5 and alive 0.5. Or dead-alive. When saying she is dead, not-alive is communicated without any time, faster than light speed, lol. The result is determinable and 100% valid. But it describes not the reality as it is.
Pushing or inviting is a matter of perception in this case where the prospect of a different perspective is all that is needed
@Yen in your statement "Their cultural influence and the terms that are used there are not accessible to western culture and hence ridiculed by western Philosophy." I ask for a point of clarification that you are not including the native populations of the western hemisphere when you say "western culture"
Sorry just not with my limited powers of perception able to see the your inviting nature in this post and others like it