A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dachshund
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Dachshund » Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:25 am

Belinda wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:34 pm


And a well pressed pair of trousers is classy too. Gosh, how trivial !

Admit it, Belinda, Margaret Thatcher was a class act. Even a cognitively challenged socialist like you should be able to see that !

Regards

Dachshund

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am

Lacewing
Saying "I believe the vertical levels of reality", instead of saying "I believe there are vertical levels of reality", is a subtle (but not unnoticed) way of you representing your belief as something that truly exists as compared to fantasy. This is why you seem sneaky to me. You represent yourself in a different light than you represent others...saying "I (Nick) do THIS"... and "You (whoever) do THIS"... and both statements are often skewed to create a certain skewed reality that supports your beliefs.
It seems sneaky to you since I am practicing deductive reason while your philosophy is based on inductive reason.

Your philosophy is bottom up and limits itself to what can be experienced by the senses. We create whatever we experience beyond the senses so by definition it becomes fantasy.

Deductive reason is top down. I have been given a skeleton of what the universe is and the levels of reality, one within the other, that comprise it. I am invited to verify it both in myself and in the universe. Blind denial is fantasy and blind belief is fantasy. However conscious verification leads to truth
Note your "casual conclusion" which happens to be very specific and limited (to suit you) amidst other obvious choices:
> They use religion to explain the Universe
> They see the Universe as a natural process with or without a specific source
> They know it's beyond our ability to fathom, so they're focused on what they CAN fathom
> They're too busy in their human drama to care about anything else
> etc
None of this answers the question what the purpose of our universe is.
Such fantasies EASILY become religion... and we know where THAT leads!!! I think a more relevant question is: "Why do some people NEED to create and command religious mentality?"
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Of course the great ideas can be abused but that doesn’t deny their value. When a person is denied the value of philosophy and the essence of religion, it destroys something in their heart. The abuse of religion is nothing compared to the value of the essence of religion.

Jacob Needleman’s book: The Heart of Philosophy
Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophywhich does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….
I think we may be serving an animal purpose and a potential conscious purpose -- I just don't claim to know what it is. I prefer to focus on the quality and intent of my energy in any given moment or state of mind, and on being a clear conduit for supporting the flow of that which is greater than myself. I don't need or want to define it into a noisy human religion of some sort.

This is fine for you but why put down those with philosophical minds and hearts who wonder about the great questions such as who am I and what is my purpose here? It isn’t a matter of knowing but how a person can become able to know. It doesn’t come through fantasy.
I don't know if there are actually violent reactions from anyone -- I just know (personally) that your sneaky manipulation/distortions of communications and truth/reality (even if it's something you're not aware of) are underhanded and self-serving. Such may stir up a vocal or passionate reaction, but I don't think it's violent.
This is all in your mind and has no basis in reality. Limiting yourself to inductive reason you reject the value of the universal hypothesis that invites a person to verify through the practice of experiential deductive reason.

The idea of levels of reality is meaningless for you but not for others. Just read Chapter ONE of Jacob Needleman’s A Sense of the Cosmos:

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html
Ancient man's scale of the universe is awesome, too, but in an entirely different way, and with entirely different consequences for the mind that contemplates it. Here man stands before a universe which exceeds him in quality as well as quantity. The spheres which encompass the earth in the cosmological schemes of antiquity and the Middle Ages represents levels of conscious energy and purpose which "surround" the earth much as the physiological function of an organ such as the heart "surrounds" or permeates each of the separate tissues which comprise it, or as the captain's destination "encompasses" or "pervades" the life and activity of every crewman on his ship.

In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.

Here it is important to note that even in terms of physical astronomy ancient man did not use the word "earth" in the way we do. Cosmic phenomena were described, and their laws were expressed in the language, or terminology, of myth, where each key word was at least as "dark" as the equations and convergent series by means of which our modern scientific grammar is built up...
I am invited to verify both in the universe and in my own being “a hierarchy of purposeful energies” It seems manipulative to you because it begins with hypothesis beyond the limitations of our world. This provokes violent reactions. It happens in the real world as well as online. Just remember the Secular Intolerance thread. It was all violent reaction. Similar violent reactions are what got Socrates killed. He invited the young to think top down and the “experts” couldn’t tolerate it. But people open to the depth of philosophy as described by Prof. Needleman are obligated to keep the ideas alive in society regardless of the growls.
YOU appear to be rejecting "the source" (as you say) if WE ARE ALL/EACH PART OF THE SOURCE. You know? You are creating DIVISIONS -- what IS and IS NOT. (What is right? What is good? What is conscious? What is vertical?) Why????????
I’m not creating divisions, they are already there. Consider the number ONE as unity. You know that it can also be divided into a virtual infinity of fractions. I think we can agree that ONE and fractions can simultaneously exist. It is the same with our source ONE outside the limits of time and space. Creation is the process of creating lawful fractions in a lawful manner within the limits of time and space..
I know, I know... you're entertained by it. So why don't you just say that? Because it is your religion -- religion is above questioning and logic and all else. Yes, yes. And you as its keeper... as the one who understands it while so many others don't... you have a purpose. Conscious... divine... you are a lighthouse and you will keep the light of truth burning. These human ideas come in so many forms all throughout our history... in so many different words and phrases and concepts... blah, blah, blah... and we always think "we see ultimate truth NOW"!!


This is just silly. The practice of deductive reason relies on questions and logic to verify the universal skeleton.
This is why I've asked several times: What difference does it make? What if everything is just fine AS IT IS? Why do we need to compare and divide and fantasize a story or religion? To control and/or entertain? Okay. Does it screw it up if we admit we're doing that... or might our games get better?
You don’t understand or appreciate those with the need to feel human “meaning.” That is why you will never understand Simone. She had a need for meaning and could never believe everything is fine as it is.
"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Pres
You may not feel this need but why criticize those who do?

No, I don't think that. I agree with some things... and other things I find ridiculous, and I explain why. I wish you didn't exaggerate that as some sort of violent attack. Perhaps it feels that way because of how tightly you are clinging to something.

Again, I know what I’ve experienced. I know the reactions Plato’s cave gets. Turning to the light is not a topic for polite secular discussion. There is no exaggeration Discussing our ignorance of the conscious universe and the human condition as described in the cave analogy provokes at least passionate denial and all that negativity makes philosophy meaningless.
Many people have all sorts of stories about what is happening and why, and where it will lead. I do not know. It's fun discussing and imagining, but I'm very wary of spinning off into any certain fantasies. I'd like to keep my eyes and my mind open and flexible, attentive and accepting, grateful and playful.


You’ve described secular progressive philosophy and all the fantasy it can produce. But at the same time if in a previous incarnation we had been on the Titanic, at some point we would have to admit the ship is sinking.

Belinda
Posts: 2802
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Belinda » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:49 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:25 am
Belinda wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:34 pm


And a well pressed pair of trousers is classy too. Gosh, how trivial !

Admit it, Belinda, Margaret Thatcher was a class act. Even a cognitively challenged socialist like you should be able to see that !

Regards

Dachshund
Dachshund, the phrases , the metaphors, you employ are foreign to me. I steer clear of populism as much as I can. On second thoughts, maybe you miss your mother.

Dachshund
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Dachshund » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:19 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:49 am

Dachshund, the phrases , the metaphors, you employ are foreign to me. I steer clear of populism as much as I can. On second thoughts, maybe you miss your mother.

Dear Belinda,


Your snarky comment brings to mind a verse from John Donne ( the great 17th century English metaphysical poet)...


Hope not for mind in women; at their best
Sweetness and wit, they are but mummy possessed


How very true !!



Regards


Dachshund

Belinda
Posts: 2802
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Belinda » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:56 am

I don;t aim to rival Donne in his facility with metaphysical conceits.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Lacewing » Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:43 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Lacewing wrote:Saying "I believe the vertical levels of reality", instead of saying "I believe there are vertical levels of reality", is a subtle (but not unnoticed) way of you representing your belief as something that truly exists as compared to fantasy. This is why you seem sneaky to me. You represent yourself in a different light than you represent others...saying "I (Nick) do THIS"... and "You (whoever) do THIS"... and both statements are often skewed to create a certain skewed reality that supports your beliefs.
It seems sneaky to you since I am practicing deductive reason while your philosophy is based on inductive reason.
You're doing it again...defining and attributing in such a way as to create a reality that supports and suits yourself. It denies and is closed off to anything else.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Your philosophy is bottom up and limits itself to what can be experienced by the senses. We create whatever we experience beyond the senses so by definition it becomes fantasy.

Deductive reason is top down. I have been given a skeleton of what the universe is and the levels of reality, one within the other, that comprise it. I am invited to verify it both in myself and in the universe. Blind denial is fantasy and blind belief is fantasy. However conscious verification leads to truth
Sooo...you believe the "skeleton of reality you've been given" is not based on the senses of anyone?

And you also think that I do not continually verify the views that inform me?

How do you come up with such a self-serving model and not question yourself about it? Do you seriously not see how you constantly skew things to create and glorify the reality you prefer?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Lacewing wrote:Note your "casual conclusion" which happens to be very specific and limited (to suit you) amidst other obvious choices:
> They use religion to explain the Universe
> They see the Universe as a natural process with or without a specific source
> They know it's beyond our ability to fathom, so they're focused on what they CAN fathom
> They're too busy in their human drama to care about anything else
> etc
None of this answers the question what the purpose of our universe is.
I was answering your question of why people don't seek to know a "purpose" in the way that you do. Why do you presume that what you think/do is some sort of ultimate truth? In a Universe so vast, with all of these "souls" -- isn't it conceivable that there is no single purpose?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Lacewing wrote:Such fantasies EASILY become religion... and we know where THAT leads!!! I think a more relevant question is: "Why do some people NEED to create and command religious mentality?"
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Of course the great ideas can be abused but that doesn’t deny their value. When a person is denied the value of philosophy and the essence of religion, it destroys something in their heart. The abuse of religion is nothing compared to the value of the essence of religion.
I agree with you that there can be value in religion -- it can be a vehicle for spiritual nature, as well as compassion and good deeds. The risk is that religion often becomes the "idol", and spirituality and self-inquiry are set aside, because "the" god or philosophy has a plan and is in control. Perhaps handing oneself over to that alleviates a lot of personal responsibility (even if only from fear, rather than laziness), while also providing a wealth of stories for a person to use in an endless number of ways (some to serve others, some to serve themselves).
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Lacewing wrote: I think we may be serving an animal purpose and a potential conscious purpose -- I just don't claim to know what it is. I prefer to focus on the quality and intent of my energy in any given moment or state of mind, and on being a clear conduit for supporting the flow of that which is greater than myself. I don't need or want to define it into a noisy human religion of some sort.
This is fine for you but why put down those with philosophical minds and hearts who wonder about the great questions such as who am I and what is my purpose here? It isn’t a matter of knowing but how a person can become able to know. It doesn’t come through fantasy.
Why do you say this? I have a philosophical mind and heart. I'm just not religious about it. Do you think philosophy must express itself as religion?

I don't have to wonder the same things you do, Nick, in order to be philosophical.

Yes, of course a lot of philosophy IS fantasy based on all kinds of stories. How can you NOT acknowledge that? Just look at the philosophies you DON'T agree with, and wouldn't you be able to say they're based on fantasies or stories?

I'm not trying to take value away, Nick. I'm suggesting that there's empowerment through some recognition and admission that we don't know ultimately... and we're having fun (and finding value) playing with a lot of it via our human concepts and limitations. There is tons of value in that too!
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am

The idea of levels of reality is meaningless for you but not for others.
I think there are levels of reality... perhaps just not in the same way you define or think of them. Why does everything have to be defined or thought of in the way that you do, Nick?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am

I’m not creating divisions, they are already there.
That's one level of reality.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Consider the number ONE as unity. You know that it can also be divided into a virtual infinity of fractions. I think we can agree that ONE and fractions can simultaneously exist.
Yes.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
It is the same with our source ONE outside the limits of time and space.
This is the model you prescribe to. Do you not think there could be any other possibilities "outsides the limits" of human ideas? The idea of a "source" is so dressed up by humans. There is so much meaning assigned to it -- which may have nothing at all to do with anything.

I question such an idea being put forth as absolute and known as ultimate reality.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
The practice of deductive reason relies on questions and logic to verify the universal skeleton.
Which is all based on the limits of human understanding, perception, concepts, needs, etc. Your fluffy terminology becomes yet another idol...which may actually obstruct a more open and flowing experience of the PRESENT MOMENT (free of noise and ideas), which may be some of the richest and clearest experience and awareness we can have!
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
You don’t understand or appreciate those with the need to feel human “meaning.”
I'm simply speaking of another type of human meaning, Nick. I'm saying there is MORE than what you envision and prescribe to.

When you make these claims about me, simply because I don't envision and prescribe to what you do, you are in essence saying that what you envision and prescribe to is the ONLY THING TRUE OR WORTHWHILE, yes? That is a limited religious mindset, isn't it?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Simone quote: "...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God."
You may not feel this need but why criticize those who do?
I'm not trying to be mean or unfair, Nick. Do you not "criticize" that which you disagree with? If you see someone who appears to be telling stories and ignoring obvious inconsistencies, wouldn't you say, "Hey! What's up with that?" and "What are you trying to get away with?"

I can look at Simone's writings in a variety of ways. Sometimes I can see a potential deeper meaning than what you seem to be focused on. Other times, she seems a bit tangled up in ideas. Either way, I look for the value that I can see in it.

For example, in the quote of her's above, it makes sense to me in this way: ALL IS "GOD". There is no seeking or belief required. That also means there is nothing that is NOT God. One should refuse to believe in everything that "is not God" (because that's an illusion). When you stop seeking and believing, you can see...God/All is already there. This would align with other things that make sense to me: There are no divisions! It's human illusion to think that there are. Everything is FINE and in perfect ORDER. Human dramas and ideas are on the stage of life, which in no way reflect anything other than THAT. Human ideas are naturally limited. STILL, it is ALL BEAUTIFUL and it is ALL "GOD", and it can be naturally experienced fully and richly in the present moment when all the "non-god" noise and ideas are set aside. What do you think I don't understand?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Turning to the light is not a topic for polite secular discussion.
Again, your terminology seems to assume a lot. Which "light" are you talking about...and do you assume it to be the one and only true light? How can anyone meet your requirements for discussion when you control "the ultimate truth"?

Skepdick
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:19 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:53 am
Deductive reason is top down.
You are conflating reduction with deduction.

Any general rule you are using in deduction (the "top" where you start) has been arrived at by induction.

Dachshund
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Dachshund » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:32 am

Belinda wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:56 am
I don;t aim to rival Donne in his facility with metaphysical conceits.


Do you remember this, Belinda ? ...





Rave on John Donne, rave on thy Holy fool

Down through the weeks of ages

In the moss bourne dank dark pools

Rave on, down through the industrial revolution

Empiricism, the atomic and nuclear age

Rave on down through time and space down through the corridors

Rave on words on printed page

Rave on, you left us infinity

In well pressed pages torn to fade

Drive on with wild abandon

Uptempo, frenzied heels

Rave on...Rave on....




/b]


Kindest Regards


Dachshund



You gotta hand it to the good, old Dead White Males from Ingerlund, Belinda (and some of the DWFemales too, like Jane Austen and Mary Shelly - MS was an AMAZING and admirable woman in every respect, not just as an authoress- , Charlotte Bronte, etc.). I get really angry when I see how they have taken the masters of English literature out of secondary schools' English curriculum in the West (even in "Avalon" itself where I once taught in an 11-18 Comprehensive in North London). They do not teach the masters of the language like Shakespeare, Byron, Shelley, Thackeray, Oscar Wilde, John Donne to kids anymore because: (1) they are MALE (and that's a "political" crime in itself these days; (2) they are elitist, "elitist" here connotes embodying the culture of the ruling/priviliged class, and I reject that criticism because Shakespeare wrote his plays for the common man, and an author like Oscar Wilde, likewise wrote his best dramas for the public at large - oi polloi. If , on the other hand,by elitist, a critic is saying the the great masters of the English language like John Donne, Shelley and Coleridge are too intellectually challenging for secondary school kids, I would say, yes, they are not easy to grasp straight off. But isn't that what schools and English teachers are for ??!! To help kids work their way through, say, some of John Donne's challenging, but brilliant, poetry; to explain the literary devices he used like the extended metaphors/the "conceit" and the spectacular turns of assonance that he crafted, etc.. Sure Donne is tricky and subtle and a "clever-clogs", but there's no way the average 16 -year- old kid, provided he has a good teacher,- (and that's another problem !!)-, can't learn how to get his head around the Holy Reverend, even though he wrote in the English of the 17th century.( You know - if I might diverge for a moment- I have to laugh sometimes when read him. On the one hand he was a buttoned-down, pious and righteous member of the Anglican clergy, thundering from the "pulpit", so to speak, all "fire and brimstone" about the wickedness of the Devil and the wages of sin, etc. On the other hand, a lot of his poetry was outright pornographic by the standards of the day and includes:a "red-hot", S-L-O-W, description of a striptease he has made one of his girl friends perform for him (!), randy males with erections lusting after young women; depictions of illicit fornication aplenty (including his own lecherous, sexual stunts, and so on :D ) To continue. My point is this: once a teacher has given a kid a true appreciation of one or two of Shakespeare's plays, or some of Percy Shelley's famous sonnets or a selection of John Donne's most famous metaphysical poetry, that kid has been handed a priceless gift - a treasure that will last him/her a lifetime. He has been given,- in a form, that he can always readily access anytime/anywhere, some of the highest and most beautiful moments of the human soul. AS the poet rightly says in the verse above, John Donne "...left us infinity/in well pressed pages torn to fade", ditto Shelly, ditto Byron, ditto Wordsworth, ditto John Clare,( the incredible "Northamptonshire Peasant",may God have mercy on his poor soul). The work of these men is immortal, what is coded in ink on the pages they wrote IS infinite because it is too beautiful ever to fade and die.
Last edited by Dachshund on Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2802
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Belinda » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:10 am

The children need to learn how to put the sound and the fury with the goats, and the serious intent with the sheep.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:16 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:32 am
Belinda wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:56 am
I don;t aim to rival Donne in his facility with metaphysical conceits.


Do you remember this, Belinda ? ...





Rave on John Donne, rave on thy Holy fool

Down through the weeks of ages

In the moss bourne dank dark pools

Rave on, down through the industrial revolution

Empiricism, the atomic and nuclear age

Rave on down through time and space down through the corridors

Rave on words on printed page

Rave on, you left us infinity

In well pressed pages torn to fade

Drive on with wild abandon

Uptempo, frenzied heels

Rave on...Rave on....




/b]


Kindest Regards


Dachshund



You gotta hand it to the good, old Dead White Males from Ingerlund, Belinda (and some of the DWFemales too, like Jane Austen and Mary Shelly - MS was an AMAZING and admirable woman in every respect, not just as an authoress- , Charlotte Bronte, etc.). I get really angry when I see how they have taken the masters of English literature out of secondary schools' English curriculum in the West (even in "Avalon" itself where I once taught in an 11-18 Comprehensive in North London). They do not teach the masters of the language like Shakespeare, Byron, Shelley, Thackeray, Oscar Wilde, John Donne to kids anymore because: (1) they are MALE (and that's a "political" crime in itself these days; (2) they are elitist, "elitist" here connotes embodying the culture of the ruling/priviliged class, and I reject that criticism because Shakespeare wrote his plays for the common man, and an author like Oscar Wilde, likewise wrote his best dramas for the public at large - oi polloi. If , on the other hand,by elitist, a critic is saying the the great masters of the English language like John Donne, Shelley and Coleridge are too intellectually challenging for secondary school kids, I would say, yes, they are not easy to grasp straight off. But isn't that what schools and English teachers are for ??!! To help kids work their way through, say, some of John Donne's challenging, but brilliant, poetry; to explain the literary devices he used like the extended metaphors/the "conceit"/ the spectacular turns of assonance that he used. Sure Donne is tricky and subtle and a "clever-clogs", but there's no way the average 16 -year- old kid, provided he has a good teacher,- (and that's another problem !!)-, can't learn how to get his head around the Holy Reverend, even though he wrote in the English of the 17th century.( You know - if I might diverge for a moment- I have to laugh sometimes when read him. On the one hand he was a buttoned-down, pious and righteous member of the Anglican clergy, thundering from the "pulpit", so to speak, all "fire and brimstone" about the wickedness of the Devil and the wages of sin, etc. On the other hand, a lot of his poetry was outright pornographic by the standards of the day and includes:a "red-hot", S-L-O-W, description of a striptease he has made one of his girl friends perform for him (!), randy males with erections lusting after young women; depictions of illicit fornication aplenty (including his own lecherous, sexual stunts, and so on :D ) To continue. My point is this: once a teacher has given a kid a true appreciation of one or two of Shakespeare's plays, or some of Percy Shelley famous sonnets or a selection of John Donne's most famous metaphysical poetry, that kid has been handed a priceless gift - a treasure that will last him/her a lifetime. He has been given,- in a form, that he can always readily access anytime/anywhere, some of the highest and most beautiful moments of the human soul. AS the poet rightly says in the verse above, John Donne "...left us infinity/in well pressed pages torn to fade", ditto Shelly, ditto Byron, ditto Wordsworth, ditto John Clare,( the incredible "Northamptonshire Peasant",may God have mercy on his poor soul). The work of these men is immortal, what is coded in ink on the pages they wrote IS infinite because it is too beautiful ever to fade and die.


You are too old fashioned. it won't sell. It's not rap. I didn't read about whose momma sucks or what the hoes are doing. Get with the times and the world of modern education and inspiration as it defines the reality of equality.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm

Lacewing
You're doing it again...defining and attributing in such a way as to create a reality that supports and suits yourself. It denies and is closed off to anything else.
My primary interest concerns supporting the natural complimentary relationship between science and religion. The division which exists now is only proof of our collective stupidity.

If the scientific method leads to truth as does the essence of religion, there is no conflict. Consequently I look for the logic of religion and how it can be presented so it doesn’t appear idiotic to science. That is where the universal skeleton comes in.

The laws of science are horizontal comparing and measuring the duality of phenomenon. The laws of being measure the vertical quality of NOW – the quality of the moment. They are the same laws but just apply to different but complimentary directions. Science measures duality and the laws of being define the quality of relative NOW as it relates to the source of being. I cannot see how fantasy can apply to the laws of being or science.
I agree with you that there can be value in religion -- it can be a vehicle for spiritual nature, as well as compassion and good deeds. The risk is that religion often becomes the "idol", and spirituality and self-inquiry are set aside, because "the" god or philosophy has a plan and is in control. Perhaps handing oneself over to that alleviates a lot of personal responsibility (even if only from fear, rather than laziness), while also providing a wealth of stories for a person to use in an endless number of ways (some to serve others, some to serve themselves).

Why do you say this? I have a philosophical mind and heart. I'm just not religious about it. Do you think philosophy must express itself as religion?
I agree that much of modern secularized religion supports fantasy and self serving justification. However it isn’t the essence of religion.

The essence of religion is an esoteric school. In Christianity for example there are three steps: the desire to be Christian, the ability to become Christian, and finally becoming Christian and following in the precepts of Christ. This is why there are so few Christians. A person must learn how to struggle with themselves so as to be able to carry their own cross and acquire inner freedom. Philosophy raises the essential questions people with the need to experience objective human meaning and purpose are drawn to. The essence of religion supplies methods making it possible to experience their need. Even if there is so much fantasy attached to secularized religion, why oppose the need the essence of religion serves?
Yes, of course a lot of philosophy IS fantasy based on all kinds of stories. How can you NOT acknowledge that? Just look at the philosophies you DON'T agree with, and wouldn't you be able to say they're based on fantasies or stories?
Myth is not fantasy. It is a means to bypass the literal mind so a person can feel its message. Plato’s cave is a myth as well as Jesus’ parables. The greater truths which touch the emotional side of Man must be told in this way to prevent the literal mind from destroying it. Of course questions are raised by myth but their purpose isn’t escapism but rather revelation.
I'm not trying to take value away, Nick. I'm suggesting that there's empowerment through some recognition and admission that we don't know ultimately... and we're having fun (and finding value) playing with a lot of it via our human concepts and limitations. There is tons of value in that too!
Of course there is great value in humor and recreation. But once it becomes the source of dominant escapism it becomes its own worst enemy for a seeker of truth.
This is the model you prescribe to. Do you not think there could be any other possibilities "outsides the limits" of human ideas? The idea of a "source" is so dressed up by humans. There is so much meaning assigned to it -- which may have nothing at all to do with anything.

I question such an idea being put forth as absolute and known as ultimate reality.
Science needs a common sense explanation of creation to accept the concept of objective values. What I am referring to provides such a common sense explanation through the explanation of the laws of being. Of course the experts have perverted the idea of the source for many but the true seeker of truth is not taken in by these experts in lunacy.
Which is all based on the limits of human understanding, perception, concepts, needs, etc. Your fluffy terminology becomes yet another idol...which may actually obstruct a more open and flowing experience of the PRESENT MOMENT (free of noise and ideas), which may be some of the richest and clearest experience and awareness we can have!
Why fight conscious verification? Suppose the process of deductive reason invites me to verify if I am inner unity or a plurality lacking the inner unity I believe I have? I verify through conscious attention that one moment I am intellectual but easily can become emotional and soon after become physical. I see that I am dominated by external influences. I continually change. Your present moment vanishes as quickly as it arose. Must that be our conscious future?
I'm simply speaking of another type of human meaning, Nick. I'm saying there is MORE than what you envision and prescribe to.

When you make these claims about me, simply because I don't envision and prescribe to what you do, you are in essence saying that what you envision and prescribe to is the ONLY THING TRUE OR WORTHWHILE, yes? That is a limited religious mindset, isn't it?
Lacewing, we have verified how the ancient ideas spoken of by those like Plato are hated and have led to the most ingenious attacks against the world including me simply because they question the glory of humanity living in Plato’s cave. I figure I’m in good company since many good people have been killed for the sake of these ideas so as of now I’m ahead of the game.

What is worthwhile is defined by what you need and believe. I can’t tell you what to believe but I know it is logical that without the balance of science and religion Man wil not survive. Technology will have the effect of denying opening to objective conscience and without it what is more natural than war?
1954
“We will be destroyed unless we create a cosmic conscience. And we have to begin to do that on an individual level, with the youth that are the politicians of tomorrow…. But no one, and certainly no state, can take over the responsibility that the individual has to his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 141. Conversation in Summer of 1954)
Nick_A wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:53 pm
Turning to the light is not a topic for polite secular discussion.

Again, your terminology seems to assume a lot. Which "light" are you talking about...and do you assume it to be the one and only true light? How can anyone meet your requirements for discussion when you control "the ultimate truth"?
I refer to the light of consciousness.
Genesis One

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The prisoners in Plato’s cave cannot turn toward this light. They are enchanted by the shadows on the wall created by the light of the sun.
If you look at Plato’s divided line the visible world is made possible by the sun while the intelligible light is an expression of consciousness.

The seeker of truth needs to verify while the seeker of pleasure just goes with the flow. The path a person takes must be defined by their need.

There is no reason why science should take seriously religious fantasy designed to allow a person to feel consolation and imaginary self importance. But without respect for the importance of objective conscience made possible by religious influence science will continue serving the creation of what is the most efficient for the lessening of human being. Nothing good can come of it.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Lacewing » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:09 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
If the scientific method leads to truth as does the essence of religion, there is no conflict.
What if they lead to different truths? Is that possible? Is it bad? Can multiple truths exist? I think so!
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Consequently I look for the logic of religion and how it can be presented so it doesn’t appear idiotic to science.
Well, that's an interesting task. Do you also look for the logic in science/nature, to see that it is not idiotic? And do you see and appreciate how each of these are just different "dances" so-to-speak... for seeking truth, or expressing creativity or energy, or whatever... based on what we can comprehend and imagine?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
The laws of science are horizontal comparing and measuring the duality of phenomenon. The laws of being measure the vertical quality of NOW – the quality of the moment.
Well I just took out my ruler to measure the horizontal and vertical, and found them both very confining. :D
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
They are the same laws but just apply to different but complimentary directions. Science measures duality and the laws of being define the quality of relative NOW as it relates to the source of being. I cannot see how fantasy can apply to the laws of being or science.
So you do not see how SIMPLY BEING HUMAN is enough to impose fantasies or imagination onto everything we perceive and create? This includes whatever "laws" we decide there are. Do you not see the arrogance and absurdity of human beings claiming to know ultimate laws and truth and reality?

Of course it can be very entertaining and inspiring to imagine and ask about such things... but to claim to know (and build on that) is a completely different matter.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Even if there is so much fantasy attached to secularized religion, why oppose the need the essence of religion serves?
For the same reason you might tell a person there aren't really any monsters chasing them and they don't need to leap off a cliff to escape. Perhaps there are other perspectives which could comfort and transform their need. It seems pretty evident that NEEDS and RELIGION can be an intoxicating mix. And for people who SEEK, religion can provide wildly skewed stories and validation. How real is that? Does it matter if someone uses that to spew false stories and condemn others?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Myth is not fantasy.
Both are "made-up", Nick.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
It is a means to bypass the literal mind so a person can feel its message.
I'm not saying it can't be useful. I'm saying it's made-up. Humans make-up stuff. Some humans claim to know stuff which they claim isn't made-up. How is that possible?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Of course there is great value in humor and recreation. But once it becomes the source of dominant escapism it becomes its own worst enemy for a seeker of truth.
What if it has nothing to do with escapism -- rather it has to do with awareness?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Science needs a common sense explanation of creation to accept the concept of objective values. What I am referring to provides such a common sense explanation through the explanation of the laws of being.
No matter how clever or sensible you think it is, it's made-up.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Of course the experts have perverted the idea of the source for many but the true seeker of truth is not taken in by these experts in lunacy.
What about the lunacy spewed by people who make things up? And then they are perverted enough to claim it as ultimate truth?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Why fight conscious verification? Suppose the process of deductive reason invites me to verify if I am inner unity or a plurality lacking the inner unity I believe I have? I verify through conscious attention that one moment I am intellectual but easily can become emotional and soon after become physical. I see that I am dominated by external influences. I continually change.
Do you really change? Or do you find ever-more creative ways of weaving everything back into your basket of belief? :lol:
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
Your present moment vanishes as quickly as it arose. Must that be our conscious future?
:lol: Such a funny statement and question -- it makes me want to hug you. The present moment doesn't appear or vanish... it's always there... and it's a tuned-in state to NOW and consciousness, without the stories and noise, and without ego and intoxication, so CLARITY can be experienced. In an instant, a person can see further and deeper than a year's worth of seeking and struggle might reveal to them. This is why I don't think PARTICULAR conscious paths are necessary, and in fact, they can be delusional and derailing. They're simply one choice of many... or even a preferred habit/pattern... which can be useful or not, in various ways. There are no laws except the made-up laws we create and decide to follow. Those, too, can be useful or not, in various ways.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
I know it is logical that without the balance of science and religion Man wil not survive.
I can agree with the spirit of what you are saying. :) In all things, balance is important. What I question is our many convoluted ideas that comprise these realms. How can you have balance between various forms of falseness? There is falseness because there is so much we don't know and are yet to understand. Still we continually strive to command and destroy based on falseness. OUR PERSPECTIVE IS LIMITED AND WE DON'T KNOW.

So, instead of claiming WHAT IS AND NEEDS TO BE... we could focus on recognizing THE OTHER THAT EXISTS AND IS POSSIBLE. What IS THAT? What might we be able to do with a broader perspective that encompasses more? Are these not useful questions, Nick? Are these not conscious explorations?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
The prisoners in Plato’s cave cannot turn toward this light. They are enchanted by the shadows on the wall created by the light of the sun.
I think everyone has access to, and experiences with, consciousness. Some may "sleep" or spin in fantasies more than others. I'm not sure there's anything we need to "fix". The idea of "prisoners" is dark in itself. More made-up stuff. There are many ways to write the stories of our experience.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
The seeker of truth needs to verify while the seeker of pleasure just goes with the flow.
What about one who does NOT SEEK, but enjoys truth and pleasure both? Is there room in your Book of Laws to include such a possibility?

What is wrong with "going with the flow"? Do you think it better to position oneself as an immovable boulder in one section of the river, or to circle endlessly in a side whirlpool, experiencing nothing else than that?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm
The path a person takes must be defined by their need.
Makes sense. Is it good to point out to them that there are MANY paths, or is that too much information? :D

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Sculptor » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:28 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:58 pm
As a counter - example of an intelligent, tasteful, civilised, attractive and eminently liberated woman, I give you the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher (one of my heroes). The following quote of hers from 1987 says it all...


"Ladies and Gentlemen, I stand before you tonight in my pink chiffon evening gown, my face softly made up, my fair hair gently waved...the IRON LADY of the Western world."

Now THAT, is what I call class !


Regards


Dachshund
Thatcher: the worst thing that ever happened to the UK.
Pure Evil.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:40 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:28 pm
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:58 pm
As a counter - example of an intelligent, tasteful, civilised, attractive and eminently liberated woman, I give you the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher (one of my heroes). The following quote of hers from 1987 says it all...


"Ladies and Gentlemen, I stand before you tonight in my pink chiffon evening gown, my face softly made up, my fair hair gently waved...the IRON LADY of the Western world."

Now THAT, is what I call class !


Regards


Dachshund
Thatcher: the worst thing that ever happened to the UK.
Pure Evil.
Like every other so-called 'neo-liberal'.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:53 am

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil
What if they lead to different truths? Is that possible? Is it bad? Can multiple truths exist? I think so!
It isn’t just possible but also necessary if they are true. Science studies the relationships and interactions between material quantities. The essence of religion is concerned with the relationship between qualities of being and their relative objective value. There is no reason for any division between quantity and quality. Together they reveal reality which the seeker of truth desires to understand and experience.

Simone’s argument against the increasing reliance on algebra was that it was void of the appreciation for objective quality essential to reach understanding of value.
Well, that's an interesting task. Do you also look for the logic in science/nature, to see that it is not idiotic? And do you see and appreciate how each of these are just different "dances" so-to-speak... for seeking truth, or expressing creativity or energy, or whatever... based on what we can comprehend and imagine?
Of course I look for logic in nature as Einstein did who wrote:
“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
So you do not see how SIMPLY BEING HUMAN is enough to impose fantasies or imagination onto everything we perceive and create? This includes whatever "laws" we decide there are. Do you not see the arrogance and absurdity of human beings claiming to know ultimate laws and truth and reality?

Of course it can be very entertaining and inspiring to imagine and ask about such things... but to claim to know (and build on that) is a completely different matter.
Of course. The scientist does not impose fantasies regarding universal laws but rather seeks to verify what the Man of being experienced by revelation and or intuition. Science goes wrong when it gives the impression of the wholeness of understanding when it is limited to partial truths. Evolution is good example. It is used by people to support the idea of natural selection leading to organic evolution.

We can verify laws such as mathematics. Would you agree by any name you use that three objects added to five objects result in eight objects? It is a universal truth.

If the universe is a living whole sustained by consciousness and universal laws, as Simone suggests, increased precision will lead to the reality of our conscious connection to the source of our existence.
No matter how clever or sensible you think it is, it's made-up.
Is math made up or does it express quantifiable relationships?
What about the lunacy spewed by people who make things up? And then they are perverted enough to claim it as ultimate truth?
It is a natural result of fallen human being. The sacred must be corrupted to serve pragmatic selfish aims. A seeker of truth must develop what is called inner taste – the ability to separate the wheat from the tares. Without it they will fall into the void of self deception.
Such a funny statement and question -- it makes me want to hug you. The present moment doesn't appear or vanish... it's always there... and it's a tuned-in state to NOW and consciousness, without the stories and noise, and without ego and intoxication, so CLARITY can be experienced. In an instant, a person can see further and deeper than a year's worth of seeking and struggle might reveal to them. This is why I don't think PARTICULAR conscious paths are necessary, and in fact, they can be delusional and derailing. They're simply one choice of many... or even a preferred habit/pattern... which can be useful or not, in various ways. There are no laws except the made-up laws we create and decide to follow. Those, too, can be useful or not, in various ways.
Try this simple experiment. Sit down at a table and instead of using “I” say “it is sitting at the table.” Save I for something else. Watch what IT is doing. Sometimes person experiences that I is now watching “it.” This I was not there when you entered the room, It just happened automatically. The experience will not last too long raising the question where I goes.

How does IT function if not through reacting to lawful influences. I is never home. If that is our situation, our understanding is limited to the habits of IT.

Imagintion doesn’t need logic. We can easily create our own reality. However consciousness experiences the laws of mechanical reactions. Consciousness and imagination are mutually exclusive. When one is present the other is not.
So, instead of claiming WHAT IS AND NEEDS TO BE... we could focus on recognizing THE OTHER THAT EXISTS AND IS POSSIBLE. What IS THAT? What might we be able to do with a broader perspective that encompasses more? Are these not useful questions, Nick? Are these not conscious explorations?
If it serves to answer a person’s deeper questions it is fine. But if the purpose is to suggest to oneself that we create our own reality and there is no objective meaning and purpose to those who have felt it it doesn’t offer anything other than the pleasure of fantasy?
What is wrong with "going with the flow"? Do you think it better to position oneself as an immovable boulder in one section of the river, or to circle endlessly in a side whirlpool, experiencing nothing else than that?
The essential question. Without it the essence of religion can only serve the secular need to control people’s reactions through fear. Do we follow the involutionary flow resulting in dust to dust or do we seek to remember our origin and consciously evolve so as to return to it?

The universe is in constant change. Everything in it is either serving the process of involution (the movement of unity into diversity) or evolution (the movement of diversity towards unity.) Our being is also continually in the process of change. Where the rest of organic life on earth follows the path of involution or “dust to dust,” we are dual natured. We have the animal part which results in dust to dust and also a conscious part which can evolve to serve a conscious purpose. The authentic religions initiating with a conscious source all serve to awaken Man to the reality of and the conscious potential for his existence in their own way.

Simone Weil illustrates this idea in what I view as an inspired excerpt.
“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”
Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil
Animal Man is a necessity. It serves its purpose reacting to laws. We don’t know what we are so have become used to it and consider it normal.

We do have the conscious potential to fall under the influence of a conscious understanding of laws reflecting the laws of our being connecting above and below. Some call it awakening.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests