Virgin Birth Myths

[Greta]

DAM and Nick make an impassioned case against rational thinking in favour of magical thinking, and inductive reasoning over deductive.

Trouble is, everyone engages in inductive reasoning, giving us theoretically up to seven billion different models of reality, so if we are to believe everyone we have chaos. Deductive reasoning allows us to have and share information in the public domain. If inductive reasoning is not tempered by rationality then there is little useful exchange or discussion, rather just the one who had induced an idea to "tell it from the mountain".

[Nick_A]

The Greta mind strikes again. You should have written "that dam Nick". It would have been more sincere.

As usual you have it backwards. I begin wih the ONE and through lawful involutions of matter, reach the domain on which we exist. Reasoning from the ONE into diversity is deductive or top down reason while reasoning from nothing into diversity is inductive or bottom up reasoning. It isn't reasonable for connecting levels of reality which is why it doesn't make sense and only leads to the perpetual arguments over opinions about the results of nothing.

[Science Fan]

"Simone Weil says: 'We know by means of our intelligence that what the intelligence does not comprehend is more real than what it does comprehend.'" This is one of those nutty statements that can't be taken seriously from a rational standpoint. If we don't know something, then it is impossible to say anything about it, much less that it is somehow "more real" than what we do know. This reminds me of something David Icke would say, on his more delusional days.

[Nick_A]

"Simone Weil says: 'We know by means of our intelligence that what the intelligence does not comprehend is more real than what it does comprehend.'" This is one of those nutty statements that can't be taken seriously from a rational standpoint. If we don't know something, then it is impossible to say anything about it, much less that it is somehow "more real" than what we do know. This reminds me of something David Icke would say, on his more delusional days.

If you think that's bad, consider these two observations by Simone you will probably declare to be a contradiction. But perhaps real intelligence may see it as perfectly logical:

"Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being."

"The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit."

[Science Fan]

Nick A: Those quotes strike me as mere gibberish. How can you stand reading such comments? I have little tolerance for quackery.

[Nick_A]

Nick A: Those quotes strike me as mere gibberish. How can you stand reading such comments? I have little tolerance for quackery.

You say this because you are so dedicated to supporting the literal mind that you are closed to the reality of the intuitive mind. Simone is saying that we must value intelligence but at the same time appreciate the transition from the literal mind into the intuitive mind to acquire "understanding".

Secularism is dependent on the literal mind. Becoming open to the intuitive mind and a quality of consciousness the literal mind is incapable of questions the supremacy of secular reasoning. However there are those who are open to the importance of the intuitive mind Simone alludes to. Einstein was one.

http://drsircus.com/spiritual-psycholog ... intuition/

One of the main inspirations in my life is Albert Einstein. In this precious book Einstein says, “Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.”.........................

Simone was not writing quackery. She was expressing a quality of understanding and the means of acquiring it dominant secularism denies. What you call quackery I call brilliance. We have chosen our paths.

[Science Fan]

No, Nick, I am stating it because it's true. It's gibberish. It doesn't mean anything. She just keeps tossing vague and incoherent statements out there, knowing some readers will come along and interpret those sayings in all sorts of bizarre ways. It's like making a vague horoscope, so the people who don't actually die that day, may end up interpreting their day's experience in a manner that "confirms" the vague prediction. It's a scam.

[Nick_A]

No, Nick, I am stating it because it's true. It's gibberish. It doesn't mean anything. She just keeps tossing vague and incoherent statements out there, knowing some readers will come along and interpret those sayings in all sorts of bizarre ways. It's like making a vague horoscope, so the people who don't actually die that day, may end up interpreting their day's experience in a manner that "confirms" the vague prediction. It's a scam.

What don't you understand?

"Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being."

Do you disagree with this? If you do, why?

"The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit."

She is describing what is inwardly necessary to move from dualistic reason into conscious contemplation. You seem to deny it. But to accuse Simone and Einstein of quackery seems silly. Maybe they understood what you remain closed to.

[Greta]

DAM and Nick make an impassioned case against rational thinking in favour of magical thinking, and inductive reasoning over deductive.

Trouble is, everyone engages in inductive reasoning, giving us theoretically up to seven billion different models of reality, so if we are to believe everyone we have chaos. Deductive reasoning allows us to have and share information in the public domain. If inductive reasoning is not tempered by rationality then there is little useful exchange or discussion, rather just the one who had induced an idea to "tell it from the mountain".

The Greta mind strikes again. You should have written "that dam Nick". It would have been more sincere.

As usual you have it backwards. I begin wih the ONE and through lawful involutions of matter, reach the domain on which we exist. Reasoning from the ONE into diversity is deductive or top down reason while reasoning from nothing into diversity is inductive or bottom up reasoning. It isn't reasonable for connecting levels of reality which is why it doesn't make sense and only leads to the perpetual arguments over opinions about the results of nothing.

However, I did not write "DAM Nick" so you are just attacking a straw woman. That's a bit of a waste of time, don't you think?

You cannot deduce from the top down with even a skerrick of evidence - it's all just assertion, which is why there is one accepted global science and about 4,200 religions, and many more denominations, many of which argue fiercely.

Now, if you were to find a common thread that all 4,200 religions could agree with is reliable, then you would be moving towards science. It is simply what humanity has been agreed to be reliable.

Respect for science is a show of respect for the many - respect of our ancestors and the efforts they made to understand the world in building humanity's extraordinary bodies of knowledge. To disrespect science is a dismissal of others' observations, treating them as less real and valid than one's own. That is solid in terms of empericism but naive in terms of comprehending surrounding conditions and one's existential situation.

The problem you have, Nick, is that rational thinking routinely checks out top-down angles along with bottom-up deductions because it is simply rational to use all resources at one's disposal, not just the "accepted" ones, which are the only ideas that are published.

[Dontaskme]

DAM and Nick make an impassioned case against rational thinking in favour of magical thinking, and inductive reasoning over deductive.

Who gave you the ''Greta mind'' so that you could think ''rational thinking'' notions?...do you not think that one is a rationally thinking mind?

Did Greta make that mind...who made that mind?

If the Great Greta made her own mind..then show me your mind?

Can you show me your mind?

.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

If the Great Greta made her own mind..then show me your mind?

A brain surgeon could handle with her fingers your own brain-mind, or Greta's brain-mind.

Your brain-mind changes physically as your thinking changes, and your thinking changes as your brain-mind changes. So keep thinking, Dontaskme, try to exercise the Dam brain-mind, and give it plenty of nourishment and rest, allow the Dam brain-mind to retain its natural plasticity.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:

If the Great Greta made her own mind..then show me your mind?

A brain surgeon could handle with her fingers your own brain-mind, or Greta's brain-mind.

Your brain-mind changes physically as your thinking changes, and your thinking changes as your brain-mind changes. So keep thinking, Dontaskme, try to exercise the Dam brain-mind, and give it plenty of nourishment and rest, allow the Dam brain-mind to retain its natural plasticity.

Wow, did your text book inform you to know to say that?

Who is thinking...who are you talking to ?

Are you talking to Dam..or are you talking to the image of a brain >

You have never seen your own brain...you only see an image of the brain.

If you are talking to an image...and that image is the thinker...then next time you see your brain, ask it to think...can an image think?


Try talking to your brain image...and say..hello brain, tell me what thought is going to appear next so that I know what I know before I know I know... ..just so that I can get ready for what's going to happen before it happens......can you see how absurd that it?


Does the Belinda brain know what thought is going to arise next? The fact is, there is no one to own a brain, there is no one braining, there is only the brain braining.

You've got it all backwards...and this backward teaching is what you believe to be real ..it has caught you in it's illusory net, hook, line and sinker.

.

.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote;

Does the Belinda brain know what thought is going to arise next?

That is what it tries to do. Brain-minds evolved as predictors. That's to say as pattern makers ; causes and effects are coordinated by brain-minds which are parts of the whole thinking organism. Each organ of a healthy individual cooperates with other organs. Brain-minds are the only self-reflective organs due to the complex of nerve cells plus interface with environment.

My text book is better than your text book.

[Dontaskme]

My text book is better than your text book.

It's not your text book. It's no one's text book ... it's the never ending story that had no beginning.


And so the story lives on and on and on and on...in lives in it's own memory

Do you believe in magic?

This what ever this is wanted this..did it not?

Every time a human being has sex with another human being..is there not an unconscious desire to bring more life into the world?

What about the animals, what is this drive to want to procreate?

Life wants to live, life likes living...if it didn't it wouldn't be living...can anything stop life from living itself?

Who knows life is living itself..is that not from a rational thinking mind?

.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote;

Does the Belinda brain know what thought is going to arise next?

That is what it tries to do. Brain-minds evolved as predictors. That's to say as pattern makers ; causes and effects are coordinated by brain-minds which are parts of the whole thinking organism. Each organ of a healthy individual cooperates with other organs. Brain-minds are the only self-reflective organs due to the complex of nerve cells plus interface with environment.

My text book is better than your text book.

But I already know all this..the text book informs me of my own knowledge. That I put in there from observing myself.

Everybody knows that Belinda, it's not your knowledge that is better than mine, the knowledge belongs to no one aka everyone.

Now, all you have to do is find out who is the observer observing itself ..and can that one be observed? ..then see if you think that's magic or not?