Einstein and the Cosmic Man

[Nick_A]

Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

Obviously the defensive secular cave mentality will reject the non-conformism and mysticism of those like Simone so must remain not human and unaware of even the potential for the perspective of the cosmic man. That is why it is all over but the shouting. The denying influence of the Great Beast has become too strong.

[Dontaskme]

I don't believe in universal consciousness but I do believe in universal reason.

Everything that is, is of everything else that is. Nothing is of itself alone. All created things are indissolubly united.


.

[Belinda]

I don't believe in universal consciousness but I do believe in universal reason.

Everything that is, is of everything else that is. Nothing is of itself alone. All created things are indissolubly united.


.

Yes, and reason is our key to the causes and effects that unite.

[Dontaskme]

I don't believe in universal consciousness but I do believe in universal reason.

Everything that is, is of everything else that is. Nothing is of itself alone. All created things are indissolubly united.


.

Yes, and reason is our key to the causes and effects that unite.

The cause of anything would be the mind, the intent, the whim. The causer being mental, a non physical construction?

The constructed being the effect.

.

[Greta]

This thread is really proof of why collective conscious evolution is impossible and really only for the minority with the need, will, and courage to liberate the self from its dependence on the Great Beast to define its meaning and purpose in the process of becoming human.

Give us Barabbas!" Now the world has him and will receive the fruits of his being as it argues with itself for supremacy into oblivion. Does that mean those like Einstein and Simone have lost. No they have won for themselves and for others who they have inspired to open their minds. It is the world because of its glorification of self serving imagination created by the human condition that will lose and consume itself.

Yes Nick, you are like Jesus Christ, suffering under the yoke of secularist agents of Satan.

And yet you are also so very much like Einstein - a misunderstood genius suffering under the yoke of the mindless rabble.

Noted. I shall leave you it, your holiness.

[Nick_A]

It is sad but apparently true; anything is permissible for secularism in defense and support of its God the Great Beast. Thoughts questioning the supremacy of the Great Beast must be ridiculed into oblivion. The supremacy of the Great Beast requires the elimination of thoughts opening the mind to higher consciousness and the potential for a cosmic perspective. The metaphysical repression this mindset causes the young is horrible but nothing compared to questioning the supremacy of the Great Beast for the devout secularist who demands its selective logic be accepted as the only path leading to the experience of human meaning and purpose. Einstein questioned.

https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Poet-Se ... 0828318735

Professor Hermanns interviewed Einstein in Germany before World War II, and in America after the War. They explored the nature of the cosmic man, but often discussed the horrors of the Holocaust and the implications of the atomic bomb. These verbatim conversations are published for the first time herewith. Einstein and Professor Hermanns knew too well Hitler’s visionary goal which was to make men automatons and strict followers of Nazism. Unwilling to succumb to Nazism as well as fulfilling his desire to survive rather than becoming himself a victim of the Holocaust, Einstein fled to America, where he explored the nature of man and man’s potential to achieve new heights as human beings. In his candid revelations, Einstein transcends physics and enters into a new sphere of humanism—one of a single humanity based on dignity. The theme throughout the four conversations surrounds the issue against a recurrent Anti-Semitism, especially that conducted by the Nazi.

Secularism regardless of the leader of the day, seeks to create automatons. Those like Einstein who experienced the Holocaust wonder how Man can be reduced to such a mindset. It is logical for Hitler but should it be logical for Man? Is man capable of a higher cosmic perspective that transcends becoming blind automatons? It is the question secularism must reject. It believes it just needs the right representative of the Great Beast.

The Greta/Harbal types must be intolerant of anything questioning the supremacy of the Beast which is why the cosmic Man is rejected even on a simple philosophy thread. Secularism believes it already has the necessary perspective so just needs more facts and a state controlled education to further the Beast. Spirit killing at its best.

Simone is a woman so should only be talking of pop psychology and secular ideals such as abortion and gender rights. Simone is writing of things a modern secular woman should not concern herself with. What woman needs a husband to take care of them and tell them what to do when the state does a better job of spirit killing so just support the Beast?

There are many nice secularists but those with political agendas are some of the nastiest I’ve encountered. There is nothing more important than their god the great Beast and woe be it to all who question its supremacy. The cosmic man must be forever destroyed and replaced by the cave man with the personality to create automatons in service to the Beast. Scary stuff but history proves it is what happens.

[Greta]

The Greta/Harbal types must be intolerant of anything questioning the supremacy of the Beast ...

I shall repeat what's said before, only louder since you appear not to have read it:

I keep wondering why Nick thinks that attacking a few outsider-type thinkers who are more or less like himself on a philosophy forum is "annoying the Great Beast". He might as well go annoy mice for all the good it will do.

If Simone Weil was alive today she would be trying to annoy multinational corporations and their tame governments rather than a few online nobodies. Weil would have seen that as cowardice, a cop out - playing small targets while claiming to be part of the war.

In truth, PN forum members are not actually governments or corporations. Nor are we connected with those organisations, nor even their supporters - just random people on forums hoping to share ideas about reality and compare notes.

Nick plays the "if you are not with me, you're against me" card. So, if other forum members question his grandiloquent claims then they are immediately assumed to be one with "the Great Beast" - that we actually like no more than he does.

Invalid criticisms only serve to muddy the waters, effectively undermining valid and potentially more effective critiques and thus ultimately serve the interests of the GB.

[Arising_uk]

There is human education and scientific education. The cosmic man refers to the results of a human education – a higher more inclusive quality of consciousness as opposed to the normal cave perspective that governs our lives. Inclusive consciousness reveals the big picture. Secular consciousness supports the small picture or cave life. Physics as is normally thought is just computer knowledge. It doesn't require a human education. It just requires the means to prove facts. ...

What are you talking about? Theoretical Physics requires one to think about the big pictures, applied Physics requires one to apply it to the world, essentially to talk to the Engineers.

Einstein said precisely that it was a scientific and an arts education that will produce his 'Cosmic Man' and bugger all to do with this 'inclusive consciousness' whatever the hell that is.

When are you going to come clean and tell us what it is you actually propose to teach to our young?

When science and in this case physics, serves the cosmic man or the big picture it is of service to man. When used by cave consciousness it is a mixed blessing. Man just as easily serves the results of physics including more efficient methods of killing.

So you are saying that Einstein was a caveman when he theorised about the big picture and came up with the atomic bomb?

...

Einstein had a natural inclination to the big picture that appears through intuition and for him it led analysis. ...

Except that he had to be taught first about what the picture was and the issues it involved.

What sense is it to write of curriculum if you deny the value of developing intuition and what is necessary to inspire it in the young? ...

Because you want my taxes to pay for it. And what matter that you imagine what I think, tell us what it is you will be teaching the young? As so far all you do is whinge and it's not exactly the mark of one who can walk his talk.

You and Belinda would prefer just to kill the natural impulse of objective intuition because it is “religious.” ...

No, I just want to know what you mean by 'objective intuition', how you will be teaching it and what will be the content, methodology and pedagogy?

As I’ve said so many times, this is spirit killing and the attempt to create metaphysical repression in the young to further a secular agenda. Real child abuse.

Get a grip, real child abuse is horrifyingly around us all the time and I see no sign that it is not being done by those who proclaim a metaphysical intuition about existence.

What is it you are actually going to teach if you get your way?

[Nick_A]

The Greta/Harbal types must be intolerant of anything questioning the supremacy of the Beast ...

I shall repeat what's said before, only louder since you appear not to have read it:

I keep wondering why Nick thinks that attacking a few outsider-type thinkers who are more or less like himself on a philosophy forum is "annoying the Great Beast". He might as well go annoy mice for all the good it will do.

If Simone Weil was alive today she would be trying to annoy multinational corporations and their tame governments rather than a few online nobodies. Weil would have seen that as cowardice, a cop out - playing small targets while claiming to be part of the war.

In truth, PN forum members are not actually governments or corporations. Nor are we connected with those organisations, nor even their supporters - just random people on forums hoping to share ideas about reality and compare notes.

Nick plays the "if you are not with me, you're against me" card. So, if other forum members question his grandiloquent claims then they are immediately assumed to be one with "the Great Beast" - that we actually like no more than he does.

Invalid criticisms only serve to muddy the waters, effectively undermining valid and potentially more effective critiques and thus ultimately serve the interests of the GB.

Greta, you are representative of a secular collective dedicated to furthering metaphysical repression and defending the god of secularism known as the Great Beast as the ultimate expression of human consciousness. The idea that Man is capable of evolving towards a higher more inclusive quality of consciousness connecting us to the source of our being is repulsive to you, Unfortunately your collective is becoming increasingly influential in education closing many young minds having a chance at opening

You must attack me since I support conscious evolution and Einstein’s conception of the cosmic man. I am supporting essential ideas while you attack me as a way of attacking these ideas..

Amongst other things I learn about blind emotional resistance to the recognition of the human condition from philosophy forums. It helps me to better understand what is necessary to oppose efforts from secular intolerance to impose metaphysical repression on the young

Feel free to attack me as a method of attacking what those like Einstein, Simone Weil, and Jacob Needleman open us to. You are compelled to do so in order to defend your bias. But those not in your collective read it for what it is and wonder how can Greta openly miss the obvious. It is what indoctrination does to the human mind. Scary stuff.

[Greta]

The Greta/Harbal types must be intolerant of anything questioning the supremacy of the Beast ...

I shall repeat what's said before, only louder since you appear not to have read it:

I keep wondering why Nick thinks that attacking a few outsider-type thinkers who are more or less like himself on a philosophy forum is "annoying the Great Beast". He might as well go annoy mice for all the good it will do.

If Simone Weil was alive today she would be trying to annoy multinational corporations and their tame governments rather than a few online nobodies. Weil would have seen that as cowardice, a cop out - playing small targets while claiming to be part of the war.

In truth, PN forum members are not actually governments or corporations. Nor are we connected with those organisations, nor even their supporters - just random people on forums hoping to share ideas about reality and compare notes.

Nick plays the "if you are not with me, you're against me" card. So, if other forum members question his grandiloquent claims then they are immediately assumed to be one with "the Great Beast" - that we actually like no more than he does.

Invalid criticisms only serve to muddy the waters, effectively undermining valid and potentially more effective critiques and thus ultimately serve the interests of the GB.

Greta, you are representative of a secular collective dedicated to furthering metaphysical repression and defending the god of secularism known as the Great Beast as the ultimate expression of human consciousness. The idea that Man is capable of evolving towards a higher more inclusive quality of consciousness connecting us to the source of our being is repulsive to you, Unfortunately your collective is becoming increasingly influential in education closing many young minds having a chance at opening.

You must attack me since I support conscious evolution and Einstein’s conception of the cosmic man. I am supporting essential ideas while you attack me as a way of attacking these ideas..

Amongst other things I learn about blind emotional resistance to the recognition of the human condition from philosophy forums. It helps me to better understand what is necessary to oppose efforts from secular intolerance to impose metaphysical repression on the young

Feel free to attack me as a method of attacking what those like Einstein, Simone Weil, and Jacob Needleman open us to. You are compelled to do so in order to defend your bias. But those not in your collective read it for what it is and wonder how can Greta openly miss the obvious. It is what indoctrination does to the human mind. Scary stuff.

Scary stuff indeed - if any what you said there was even remotely true. Alas, it's all just your imagination.

Like most here on the forum, I am just a tiny person interested in the nature of reality. Alas, we are not involved in such grand and important aims as you, just observing and wondering.

So all the attitude is coming from your end, despite repeated claims of persecution. You are the one doing all the persecuting, or attempting to.

Anyway, have fun being grand poobah of your world and whipping up a good old fashioned royal hatred towards your imagined foes.

.

.

[marjoram_blues]

I shall repeat what's said before, only louder since you appear not to have read it:

I keep wondering why Nick thinks that attacking a few outsider-type thinkers who are more or less like himself on a philosophy forum is "annoying the Great Beast". He might as well go annoy mice for all the good it will do.

If Simone Weil was alive today she would be trying to annoy multinational corporations and their tame governments rather than a few online nobodies. Weil would have seen that as cowardice, a cop out - playing small targets while claiming to be part of the war.

In truth, PN forum members are not actually governments or corporations. Nor are we connected with those organisations, nor even their supporters - just random people on forums hoping to share ideas about reality and compare notes.

Nick plays the "if you are not with me, you're against me" card. So, if other forum members question his grandiloquent claims then they are immediately assumed to be one with "the Great Beast" - that we actually like no more than he does.

Invalid criticisms only serve to muddy the waters, effectively undermining valid and potentially more effective critiques and thus ultimately serve the interests of the GB.

Greta, you are representative of a secular collective dedicated to furthering metaphysical repression and defending the god of secularism known as the Great Beast as the ultimate expression of human consciousness. The idea that Man is capable of evolving towards a higher more inclusive quality of consciousness connecting us to the source of our being is repulsive to you, Unfortunately your collective is becoming increasingly influential in education closing many young minds having a chance at opening.

You must attack me since I support conscious evolution and Einstein’s conception of the cosmic man. I am supporting essential ideas while you attack me as a way of attacking these ideas..

Amongst other things I learn about blind emotional resistance to the recognition of the human condition from philosophy forums. It helps me to better understand what is necessary to oppose efforts from secular intolerance to impose metaphysical repression on the young

Feel free to attack me as a method of attacking what those like Einstein, Simone Weil, and Jacob Needleman open us to. You are compelled to do so in order to defend your bias. But those not in your collective read it for what it is and wonder how can Greta openly miss the obvious. It is what indoctrination does to the human mind. Scary stuff.

Scary stuff indeed - if any what you said there was even remotely true. Alas, it's all just your imagination.

Like most here on the forum, I am just a tiny person interested in the nature of reality. Alas, we are not involved in such grand and important aims as you, just observing and wondering.

So all the attitude is coming from your end, despite repeated claims of persecution. You are the one doing all the persecuting, or attempting to.

Anyway, have fun being grand poobah of your world and whipping up a good old fashioned royal hatred towards your imagined foes.

.

Greta, as per AMod advice, I continue not to engage with N.
Please see my PM to you.

[ @ Arising: I think you are going in the right direction with your questions regarding N's agenda for children.
N. is never going to 'come clean'. ]

Shame that N is allowed to continue. It seems action is only taken when 1 AMod gets pissed off or 2. When Rick and team receive a certain amount of valid complaints.

This reminds me a bit of the 'hidden in plain sight' Hollywood problem. Ns posts are the tip of the iceberg. A blind eye being turned to continual, carefully concealed abuse covered in a veneer of 'philosophical' respectability.

And yes, the response to that last paragraph is fairly predictable.
Unfortunately.

[Belinda]

Marjoram-blues wrote :

This reminds me a bit of the 'hidden in plain sight' Hollywood problem. Ns posts are the tip of the iceberg. A blind eye being turned to continual, carefully concealed abuse covered in a veneer of respectability.

But Nick's posts are not concealed, unless he has been abusing people in personal messages, Nick's posts are open to us and anyone else who cares to read them.

I have looked carefully at Nick's posts, and when he does abuse what he is abusing is ideas not persons. To what extent are our online, Philosophy Now personas , representative of the flesh and blood individuals? True, we select what we post, otherwise our posts would possibly be streams of consciousness, which is a genre that takes a lot of talent to be intelligible. I cannot see that it's in Nick's power to abuse the real people . He could not abuse me, for instance, as he has no power over me, and also I welcome a safe opportunity to uncover unreason. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel that these forums do actually help me to sort out my ideas.

The "Hollywood problem" of male superiority is well outed . Hollywood being the showcase which it is, institutions of male superiority are over .
Nick's online persona is not powerful. Nick is not an institution. His strength lies only in good sentence construction and ability to use words.

I cannot quite understand why Nick's delusions should make you feel unhappy, Marjoram. You are among the majority who disagree with Nick. Apart from safety in numbers you are at liberty to contend with Nick if and when you like.

Is it possible that you see Nick's feelings of superiority as representative of actual male assumption of superiority in real life? I could understand that. But Nick's superiority complex of ideas is not a secret institution.

[Harbal]

He could not abuse me, for instance, as he has no power over me,

He has no power in any respect, that's probably where all this is stemming from: feelings of impotence.

[marjoram_blues]

Marjoram-blues wrote :

This reminds me a bit of the 'hidden in plain sight' Hollywood problem. Ns posts are the tip of the iceberg. A blind eye being turned to continual, carefully concealed abuse covered in a veneer of respectability.

But Nick's posts are not concealed, unless he has been abusing people in personal messages, Nick's posts are open to us and anyone else who cares to read them.

I have looked carefully at Nick's posts, and when he does abuse what he is abusing is ideas not persons. To what extent are our online, Philosophy Now personas , representative of the flesh and blood individuals? True, we select what we post, otherwise our posts would possibly be streams of consciousness, which is a genre that takes a lot of talent to be intelligible. I cannot see that it's in Nick's power to abuse the real people . He could not abuse me, for instance, as he has no power over me, and also I welcome a safe opportunity to uncover unreason. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel that these forums do actually help me to sort out my ideas.

The "Hollywood problem" of male superiority is well outed . Hollywood being the showcase which it is, institutions of male superiority are over .
Nick's online persona is not powerful. Nick is not an institution. His strength lies only in good sentence construction and ability to use words.

I cannot quite understand why Nick's delusions should make you feel unhappy, Marjoram. You are among the majority who disagree with Nick. Apart from safety in numbers you are at liberty to contend with Nick if and when you like.

Is it possible that you see Nick's feelings of superiority as representative of actual male assumption of superiority in real life? I could understand that. But Nick's superiority complex of ideas is not a secret institution.

I can see that you have neither read my post, nor those of N, as carefully as you might.
And then some...
I won't follow this line further.

[marjoram_blues]

He could not abuse me, for instance, as he has no power over me,

He has no power in any respect, that's probably where all this is stemming from: feelings of impotence.

A discussion on what constitutes online abuse, causes and effects; the power and strength of words might prove interesting. Also, the reluctance to see it for what it is, and how best to respond to it.
Just because you do not recognize it as pertaining to you, does not mean it is not happening.