Einstein and the Cosmic Man

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Simone Weil countered with the idea that revolution is the opiate of the masses. The idea is that a revolution offers temporary change. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. After a while the human condition will assure that the conditions causing revolution will repeat and the cycle will continue.

But temporary change is the best we can do, there being no possibility of Utopia.It is not going to be enough to become other-worldly or "cosmic" unless we use other-worldliness to aid the continuance of life on Earth .

[seeds]

For some reason hidden in your justified enthusiasm of wanting to help lift humanity out of Plato’s cave, you cannot seem to recognize (as I have suggested elsewhere) that your theology forms the basis of one of the most exclusive religions I have ever heard of.

What is wrong with that?

What’s wrong with it is that it basically implies that almost every human who has ever awakened into life throughout all of time (an estimated 108 billion) will never be able to achieve the strange and limited goal of becoming a “demiurge” of this universe that you have imagined* for us.

*(For someone who seems to have nothing but a disparaging disdain for imagination, you sure have been busy with yours. )

According to Buddhism, how many become a Buddha?

Are you asking how many humans such as Siddhartha Gautama become the formulators of new religions that may not represent the actual truth of reality?

Are you asking how many humans become the builders of temporary “rafts” that help to carry humans from the shore of birth to the shore of death where they (the rafts) are then abandoned after the real truth is revealed?

If that is what you are asking, then apparently just a tiny handful - which is precisely the problem in your extremely exclusive thinking.

Don’t the vast majority continue on the wheel of Samsara and reincarnate in forms rarely with the evolutionary potential of a human being?

Not if the concept of reincarnation is false.

Such exclusivity may not be PC but what if it is true. Does it really matter if the secularists who worship the Great Beast object?

Nick, you need to realize - once and for all - that you and I and all of the so-called secularists who allegedly “worship” the Great Beast are going to share the exact same destiny together (be it eternal life or eternal oblivion).

I appreciate and applaud your good intentions, and I completely agree with you that humanity is in desperate need of an awakening to help steer us off the destructive path we are following, however...

...we simply do not need another mysterious and divisive religion such as the one you are proposing.

We need something that inspires hope and unity.
_______

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Simone Weil countered with the idea that revolution is the opiate of the masses. The idea is that a revolution offers temporary change. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. After a while the human condition will assure that the conditions causing revolution will repeat and the cycle will continue.

But temporary change is the best we can do, there being no possibility of Utopia.It is not going to be enough to become other-worldly or "cosmic" unless we use other-worldliness to aid the continuance of life on Earth .

It may be the best that society or the Great Beast can do but not for an individual. There is no reason why an individual cannot acquire a conscious cosmic perspective. Even though the Beast now cannot acquire a cosmic perspective. Individuals who have acquired such a perspective serve to minimize the catastrophic effects that the beast go through as it follows the natural cycles of life. So if a cosmic perspective serves to develop a person and such developed human beings serve to minimize the normal catastrophic reactions of of mutual self destruction normal for human being, isn’t that objective progress?

You wrote of sympathy. But sympathy is just an acquired reaction. Sympathy is an expression of our personality. Human consciousness is not required, However becoming capable of putting oneself in the position of another requires human consciousness. It requires the ability to get out of our own conditioned way and open to a conscious experience rather than a judgmental reaction. Obviously only a few are capable of putting oneself into the position of another. We are conditioned to judge in the context of our own preconceptions rather than to listen.

Jacob Needleman writes of acquiring the ability to listen. Only when a person does inner work can they experience why they don’t listen. Can we learn to listen rather than judge and worry about justifying our own thoughts? Yes but it won’t happen. The modern way of the beast is to argue opinions for the sake of self justification. Putting oneself into the position of another opposes the dominant need to judge in order to feel prestige and self importance. The ability to impartially listen requires a quality of consciousness and self knowledge that is increasingly being lost. Only a minority working in private can keep it alive and free from the efforts of the beast to destroy it in favor of indoctrination.

[Nick_A]

seeds

...we simply do not need another mysterious and divisive religion such as the one you are proposing.

We need something that inspires hope and unity.

The cosmic man is a seeker of truth. If the truth is divisive, so be it. The seeker of truth doesn't need feel good hope and inspiration. Recognition of the human condition both intellectually and emotionally and what it deprives a person of is sufficient to provide the natural human attraction to the conscious direction leading to inner freedom and the ability to approach life as a human being rather than as a conditioned atom of the Great Beast.

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

But temporary change is the best we can do, there being no possibility of Utopia.It is not going to be enough to become other-worldly or "cosmic" unless we use other-worldliness to aid the continuance of life on Earth .

It may be the best that society or the Great Beast can do but not for an individual. There is no reason why an individual cannot acquire a conscious cosmic perspective.

My definition of the Great Beast is not your definition of the Great Beast.

You define the Great Beast as society: I define the Great Beast as the result of alienation from humanity.

Nick, you believe that the Cosmic consciousness is where good originates: I believe that ordinary human sympathy is where good originates.

[Nick_A]

I use Plato’s description of the Beast

http://cimarronline.blogspot.com/2004/0 ... beast.html

Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato. Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

Society, the "mighty strong beast." There's the obvious power of many hands working together. But Plato points to a deeper, pseudo-moral power of the many, the group. Weil also describes this:

The power of the social element. Agreement between several men brings with it a feeling of reality. It brings with it also a sense of duty. Divergence, where this agreement is concerned, appears as a sin. Hence all returns to the fold are possible. The state of conformity is an imitation of grace……………………….

A lot of what the Beast defines as good is connected to sympathy but sympathy is just an example of one of the chief characteristics of the beast which is hypocrisy. Consider a Mafia funeral. A person is killed and a funeral is arranged to offer sympathy. Then the next day another is killed. Perhaps sympathy is the source of the modern conception of good but since its source is hypocrisy, what good is it?

Actually I recently posted a thread on the difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism. I would be closer to absolutism and you would be closer to relativism. Can we ever agree? No,. As long as my conception of God or the source of meaning is Plato’s “Good” and yours is the Great Beast, we could never agree. For me the Cosmic Man can never evolve in an environment where the Great Beast is considered God. The Cosmic Man will only result through the inner calling to the higher reality or the Good much like a moth is attracted to the light.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23011&p=338251#p338251

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

But temporary change is the best we can do, there being no possibility of Utopia.It is not going to be enough to become other-worldly or "cosmic" unless we use other-worldliness to aid the continuance of life on Earth .

It may be the best that society or the Great Beast can do but not for an individual. There is no reason why an individual cannot acquire a conscious cosmic perspective.

My definition of the Great Beast is not your definition of the Great Beast.

You define the Great Beast as society: I define the Great Beast as the result of alienation from humanity.

Nick, you believe that the Cosmic consciousness is where good originates: I believe that ordinary human sympathy is where good originates.

Nick, I confess I have rather hi-jacked the simile "Great Beast" for my purpose.
Nonetheless I still think that you are mistaken in saying that secular society is the Great Beast that Plato referred to in The Republic.
The opposite of God as sovereign good is not secular society , but unthinking man whose aim is to conform to whatever society expects of him. Such men are may or may not be religionists.
People who don't believe in God might be people who love sovereign good too much to believe outworn creeds.

[Nick_A]

From wiki

In Jungian theory, the Cosmic Man is an archetypal figure that appears in creation myths of a wide variety of mythology. Generally he is described as helpful or positive, and serves as a seed for the creation of the world, such that after death parts of his body became physical parts of the universe. He also represents the oneness of human existence, or the universe.[citation needed]
For example, in Chinese legend, Pangu is thought to have given the natural features of the Earth their form, and when he died his body became the Sacred Mountains of China. The Persian equivalent, Keyumars, released semen when he died, out of which came the first human couple.[citation needed]
In some Jewish legends, Adam was created from dust from the four corners of the Earth, and, when bent down, his head was the East and his feet the West. In another legend, he contained the soul of everybody who would ever be born. In the teachings of Kabbalah, such a primordial man is referred to as Adam Kadmon. In Indian mythology, Purusha is a similar figure, who is considered the part of the individual which is immortal.[citation needed]
In many myths, the Cosmic Man is not just the beginning but also the final goal of life or creation. This is not necessarily a physical event, but may refer to the identification of the conscious ego with the self.[citation needed]
In the religious sciences of Islam, a more detailed explanation is furnished wherein the first Cosmic Man is identified as Adam.[citation needed] According to the sciences, Adam is a Cosmic Being because, apart from having an all-embracing power over the Universe, he also has the most privileged spiritual rank and status of a human being.[citation needed]
In more recent elaborations, the Cosmic Man is an awaited Leader who is to destined to appear in order to establish a new and golden Age on earth for all mankind.

Einstein was of course referring to an attitude which invites contemplation for a human conscious potential. It requires a connection between cave man and conscious or cosmic man. It is evident that the world rejects this attitude and is content to glorify cave man. Secular web sites will simply reflect the secular attitude and reject human conscious potential and continue to argue the many opinions of cave man.

This thread has supported the belief in cave man and the great beast as the greatest expression of human being. It is fashionable and what could be more important than the fashionable beliefs of the Great Beast?

[Greta]

I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay for your style of education, Nick. All we pay for is the grooming of a child for work in the adult world.

Where is parental responsibility in the shaping of their children's character? Why do you seem to think that this responsibility should this be devolved to the state? Would your man Trump approve of such theistic socialism?

You believe the purpose of education is to indoctrinate a student into becoming an indoctrinated atom of the Great Beast and Simone emphasizes the need to allow the student to become human.

Hiya Nick. Haven't chatted in a while as I am over this nest of lunacy. Good to see that you still want secular taxpayers to fund religious education.

Yes, it's important for one's wellbeing to be an effective cell - not a mere atom, hmmph! - in The Great Beast that is human society. (BTW did you ever hear Henry Cow's "Living in the Heart of the Beast"? Fabulous for those mellow easy listening moments, I find). If you are an incompetent or uncooperative cell, then life is difficult.

It all started when tribes first started passing on information between generations, including how to coordinate with others. Now it's a lifetime's work to get one's head even vaguely around a tiny fraction of the information that's been handed down since the Guttenberg press, and before. So, if one is to study that which has been learned (as opposed to "reinventing the wheel"), then there is an opportunity cost. The time one spends studying other people's thoughts is naturally time one isn't spending on working things out from first principles.

So yes, there are losses involved with progress. It's better than stagnation, though.

[Nick_A]

I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay for your style of education, Nick. All we pay for is the grooming of a child for work in the adult world.

Where is parental responsibility in the shaping of their children's character? Why do you seem to think that this responsibility should this be devolved to the state? Would your man Trump approve of such theistic socialism?

You believe the purpose of education is to indoctrinate a student into becoming an indoctrinated atom of the Great Beast and Simone emphasizes the need to allow the student to become human.

Hiya Nick. Haven't chatted in a while as I am over this nest of lunacy. Good to see that you still want secular taxpayers to fund religious education.

Yes, it's important for one's wellbeing to be an effective cell - not a mere atom, hmmph! - in The Great Beast that is human society. (BTW did you ever hear Henry Cow's "Living in the Heart of the Beast"? Fabulous for those mellow easy listening moments, I find). If you are an incompetent or uncooperative cell, then life is difficult.

It all started when tribes first started passing on information between generations, including how to coordinate with others. Now it's a lifetime's work to get one's head even vaguely around a tiny fraction of the information that's been handed down since the Guttenberg press, and before. So, if one is to study that which has been learned (as opposed to "reinventing the wheel"), then there is an opportunity cost. The time one spends studying other people's thoughts is naturally time one isn't spending on working things out from first principles.

So yes, there are losses involved with progress. It's better than stagnation, though.

No. I support the great American experiment and the concept of a free America its constitution protects.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

You would prefer living in secular statist slavery than furthering what is psychologically necessary to make freedom possible.

If you are an incompetent or uncooperative cell, then life is difficult.

Quite true. Simone's life was voluntarily difficult as the pursuit of experiential truth always is. However it was also meaningful. She didn't suffer the "wretched contentment" Nietzsche spoke of.

[Greta]

I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay for your style of education, Nick. All we pay for is the grooming of a child for work in the adult world.

Where is parental responsibility in the shaping of their children's character? Why do you seem to think that this responsibility should this be devolved to the state? Would your man Trump approve of such theistic socialism?

You believe the purpose of education is to indoctrinate a student into becoming an indoctrinated atom of the Great Beast and Simone emphasizes the need to allow the student to become human.

Hiya Nick. Haven't chatted in a while as I am over this nest of lunacy. Good to see that you still want secular taxpayers to fund religious education.

Yes, it's important for one's wellbeing to be an effective cell - not a mere atom, hmmph! - in The Great Beast that is human society. (BTW did you ever hear Henry Cow's "Living in the Heart of the Beast"? Fabulous for those mellow easy listening moments, I find). If you are an incompetent or uncooperative cell, then life is difficult.

It all started when tribes first started passing on information between generations, including how to coordinate with others. Now it's a lifetime's work to get one's head even vaguely around a tiny fraction of the information that's been handed down since the Guttenberg press, and before. So, if one is to study that which has been learned (as opposed to "reinventing the wheel"), then there is an opportunity cost. The time one spends studying other people's thoughts is naturally time one isn't spending on working things out from first principles.

So yes, there are losses involved with progress. It's better than stagnation, though.

No. I support the great American experiment and the concept of a free America its constitution protects.[/quote]
Where is the freedom for the US's legions of working poor? There is none.

The US is only free for billionaires but millions of suckers fall for their media gaming. Like you, will actually go to great trouble to argue on behalf of billionaires, essentially passionately arguing against their own interests.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

You would prefer living in secular statist slavery than furthering what is psychologically necessary to make freedom possible.

I prefer statist slavery to religious slavery, certainly. Religions unfortunately always pick vulnerable targets to promote a divide and conquer ethos.

There was a huge confidence trick played by religions on regular people - the pretence that theists were more morally committed and rigorous than the rest of us. The shock that "sinner" secular people felt in response to the epidemic of paedophilia in Abrahamic religions cannot be underestimated. This was not just a moral failing, but FAR worse than anything most "sins" we secular schmucks were accused of.

Something was broken with the theist paedophilia revelations; secular people realised that they were not actually morally inferior to theists but actually often significantly morally superior. We were taken for a ride.

The greater morality of secularism comes from its inclusiveness - all are included. The ugliness of theism is in extreme favour shown to in-group members and extreme antipathy shown to outsiders and certain chosen soft targets.

[Nick_A]

Greta

I prefer statist slavery to religious slavery, certainly. Religions unfortunately always pick vulnerable targets to promote a divide and conquer ethos.

There was a huge confidence trick played by religions on regular people - the pretence that theists were more morally committed and rigorous than the rest of us. The shock that "sinner" secular people felt in response to the epidemic of paedophilia in Abrahamic religions cannot be underestimated. This was not just a moral failing, but FAR worse than anything most "sins" we secular schmucks were accused of.

Something was broken with the theist paedophilia revelations; secular people realised that they were not actually morally inferior to theists but actually often significantly morally superior. We were taken for a ride.

The greater morality of secularism comes from its inclusiveness - all are included. The ugliness of theism is in extreme favour shown to in-group members and extreme antipathy shown to outsiders and certain chosen soft targets.

There is no societal religious slavery. Your are referring to the effects of devolved secularized religion. The authentic aim of religion is rebirth into a higher quality of being normal for Man. That isn’t slavery – it is freedom. The aim of secularized religion is to acquire the power to impose moral standards on people. But as Simone Weil pointed out, these efforts if successful lead to tyranny. She wrote “To set up as a standard of public morality a notion which can neither be defined nor conceived is to open the door to every kind of tyranny.”

You don’t hate god. You hate a man made conception of god which has had an effect on you

Where the purpose of secularism including secularized religion is concerned with what we do, the essence of religion is concerned with what we are now in comparison to the conscious potential for Man’s being. The essence of religion admits the fallen human condition and its dependence on hypocrisy. This is why the goals of secular humanism are futile. It denies the dominance of hypocrisy. The essence of religion seeks to awaken Man to the reality of the fallen human condition.

Hypocrisy is “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform”.

“An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.” (Proverbs 11:9)

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. . . .” (John 8:7)

Obviously secular education is meaningless since hypocrisy rules the day. We say one thing and do another. Look at all these men who have been claiming to defend women’s rights but are being exposed as abusers. Pure hypocrisy. Since we are as we are, everything remains as it is. Fine speeches cannot change it.

The purpose of the essence of religion in society is to awaken its citizens to their natural connection to the source of higher values originating from above. In this way values are felt rather than indoctrinated. For that a society needs a meaningful metaxu to psychologically connect its citizens with its source. Metaxu is a word Plato used and Simone Weil reminded me of. Naturally it is virtually unknown in secular society since it refers to the connection between above and below. From Simone Weil’s “Gravity and Grace:”

“The world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time it is the way through.

Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication. … Every separation is a link.”

The essence of created things is to be intermediaries. They are intermediaries leading from one to the other and there is no end to this. They are intermediaries leading to God. We have to experience them as such.

Man made intermediaries in modern times only serve to glorify the Great Beast. The collective appreciation of higher values necessary to enable freedom through the acceptance of voluntary obligations requires the help of a quality of metaxu allowing help from above in the form of the energy of grace.on the human psych. Without it Man is governed by hypocrisy and the only form of society that can contend with it is a form of statist slavery.

Einstein’s cosmic man must be rejected. It suggests that humanity isn’t what it thinks it is. Actually collectively it dwells in Plato’s cave living in imagination and attached to shadows on the wall. No society limited in this way can be free. Hypocrisy and the dominant need for prestige won’t allow it

I know the great experiment called America is doomed. The current complete lack of a meaningful metaxu is evidence enough. But I still support the intent of this experiment in freedom and will go down with the ship regardless of how it is condemned by “experts.”

[Greta]

There is no societal religious slavery. Your are referring to the effects of devolved secularized religion.

So you trot out your true Scotsman fallacy for the umpteenth time.

Basically you are agreeing that most religions DO oppress, and ARE oppressive. Good we agree, and that they are usually far worse than secular societies.

However, not YOUR religion (which remains undefined and appears to have a membership of one).

[Belinda]

Nick_A, enlightened souls are recognised by the fruits that they bear. Your brand of spirituality, however much it benefits Nick and Friends ,is exclusive and divisive.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A, enlightened souls are recognised by the fruits that they bear. Your brand of spirituality, however much it benefits Nick and Friends ,is exclusive and divisive.

I am not all that genuine Belinda since if I were, I would be so divisive that you would have the desire to kill me as they did Jesus. As of now you only have the need to condemn. When the fruits of my concern for truth become truly beneficial, they will be divisive enough to arouse the desire to kill. I'm not there yet. I still have a long ways to go.