Watching PBS tonight: “Dr. Wayne Dyer: The Power of Intention.” Holy moly bad stuff. Religion dressed up in authority soaked in pseudoscience. Use the word “energy” enough and people will believe anything you say. “Spirititual energy is the energy of abundance.” What does this even mean? So here is the real question. Why doesn’t the word Hamiltonian achieve as high a standing as energy? Or at least the Lagrangian, for gosh sake! And why no talk of the action. I mean that’s my favorite quantity, the action! No eigenvectors, no eignenvalues, no renormalization group. If you’re going to talk to me, and convince me of your self-help mumbo jumbo, you’d better be talking my launguage!
O brave new quantum world!
Besides “energy”, there are some other terms that have crossed: “frequency”, “field”, and -I guess- “potential”. What do they have that “action” does not?
Dyer says gay is ok bible says it is not .Read the bible if u do not believe me. Chopra says gay is ok too.
Energy, potential and other “scientific” words are previous to science. Why must worry to us its use outside science?
Because Dr. Dyer is explicitly using them to pretend that there is science behind what he is saying. If he were using it, as say Sidney did in Def. Poesie, to express force of language back in 1581, then sure it would be fine. But he is not.
He can, of course, say what every he wants. I too can tell you that he is full of it and that he is using a simple argument by authority to boost up his vacuous claims.
Your the ultimate authority right???
“Dr. Dyer is explicitly using them to pretend that there is science behind what he is saying”
Sorry! I did not know it. (I live in Spain)
Dr. Dyer makes my cry, too.
Doh! I should have made it clearer in my post!
I looked at Wayne’s biograghy. He has 8 kids and at least 2 ex-wives. Does that sound like someone that has all the answers?
Are you an expert? Do you call yourself a christian, catholic or other “child of God”? just wondering, because you are awful judgy if so…
I love Wayne Dyer. He has helped thousands of people. I guess we’re all dopes. Have a great life!
Yes!
I’m happy he has helped people, but unhappy that he has to resort to using really silly methods to achieve this goal.
They are silly to you because you have never used them..just judged…You know nothing..You are spouting ignorance and judgement that’s it…One man’s opinion of another.. a spiritual man never judges,never insults, and never talks about what he doesn’t know…
Maybe silly, but I wonder how many people you helped using your ideals.
None…He judges what he doesn’t know.. you can’t blame someone who has absolutely no clue spirituality, whenever I read posts like this from someone like him I get a sense of darkness…total darkness
I find his stuff really confusing and contradictory. He talks about God, Jesus and reincarnation being the sources of our beggining. Science and Christianity are totally opposite teachings and he includes both of them in his theory..?
I have never been religious, and I’m aligned with you on science, but based on reading his books, I think you got the wrong impression of Dyer’s pitch.
First, his basis is Eastern philosophy not science. In fact, he points you to scientific references only for those who feel they need that to support the philosophy, but it’s really not part of his pitch.
Second, he’s not at all religiously dogmatic (which is why I like him). He points out that if you medidate to clear a path to your subconscious and picture things as you wish them to be, you will gravitate to make those things a reality. This is self-hypnosis in a nutshell. It’s well-observed and it does work, but whether or not that is based in human physiology or spirtualism doesn’t matter. He theorizes that there’s a source of spiritual energy, possibly the state you were in before birth and after death. We’re born thinking that we are “separated” from this state and he thinks we can tap into it. That’s philosophy not science and I’ve never seen him even suggest otherwise.
Unless you listened to his entire presentation from start to finish, you probably wouldn’t have tuned into this. It’s much clearer in his books.
I have not listened to the entire presentation so you are probably right about where his teachings are based but I didn’t get it anyway.. I just got very frustrated.
Dyer will not appeal to everyone, but he doesn’t intend to include any science, in case that is what frustrated you. Spiritual “energy” isn’t a physics connotation, it would refer to more of an energy you might feel as part of loving someone or a “connection” you might feel in a very close friendship, more like emotional energy. Energy might be a poor choice of words for him because he didn’t mean to suggest that we’re talking about science in the context of energy vs. matter.
Purely from age-old philosophy and empircal observation, he postulates that corporeal life is a state, and that death is another state, but that our spirit doesn’t end, it just changes states. The non-corporeal state is a spiritual energy — here’s probably where it sounds like science, but that’s a misunderstanding. He goes on to say that this spirit is like a lake, a source, from which we came and where we go, and that the main problems on Earth stem from the fact that so many believe we’re separated from that “source” while we’re living. Now you’re probably saying: “Hey, how does he or anyone else know that?”
He never claims to know it or have any proof. It’s pure faith based on observation and he does not claim to have any scientific proof.
For example, I can look at the miracle of our body’s make-up, particularly our ability to reason in the abstract and this looks to me as if there was intelligent design because it does not seem reasonable to me that it’s coincidence. But, I’ll be the first to admit that is purely speculation and common sense and there’s no science to it. Philosophy is about reason and common sense, drawing conclusions from what appears to be but it’s not science.
What’s so frustrating to you about that other than a poor choice of words?
He just says that many organized religions were based on these same philosophies, but he never endorses a single one. He uses the writings of Buddhism, just as much as not more than of any other organized religion and actually tries to cut through the dogma and get down to the common philosophies. That seems so reasonable to me.
What I find frustrating about Dyer and others like him is that he presents his material as if he’s certain he knows its truth and I agree that he should be more careful to make it sound like one possible answer rather than suggesting he knows “the” answer. I don’t think he intends to do this, something is lost when you’re giving a lecture and trying to debate your point of view. He should be more humble about that in my opinion.
Dr. Dyer is not only preaching to you a false philosophy of life, but one that will in the end prove to be a dead end. There is nothing positive in what he is saying, nothing of value. I realize that what I am now going to say will sound to many of you just as ridiculous, but test these things, and see if they are not so.
Dr. Dyer asserts that we can somehow muster within ourselves positive energy drawn from and sustained by a connection with “The Source” It is in this manner that we partake and indeed become a divine nature. Now, contrast this with what the Bible, hold with me for a minute, has to say about where we come from, why we are here, and what we must do to find a connection to “The Source”
Acts 17:22-31
22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for
“‘In him we live and move and have our being’
as even some of your own poets have said,
“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
29Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
I understand that this probably sounds like a bunch of hooey to many of you, but when it comes down to it, it is the testimony of one man, Paul, against another. The viewpoints are in direct opposition to one another and both make claims to be the truth. I only ask that you consider what the Bible has to say against the “enlightened” doctrine of Dr. Dyer. In the manner of Paul I tell you that Dr. Dyer is very religious, but he does not know the only true God, the only true “source.” The divine being is not an image formed by the art or imagination of man.
It is to God, who gave us life and breath and everything, that we will be ultimately accountable to at the end of our lives. And it is through his son Jesus that we find forgiveness for our sins, and escape from the wrath of God.
If you feel that you are experiencing “negative energy” in your life, it may well be that you are living under the wrath of God that Paul speaks of in the book of Romans. Because he is holy, he commands that we be holy. We all know that this is not possible. Is it not obvious that we are depraved in so many ways within our hearts and minds?? Is it not true that in your own life you must deal with wrong thoughts and motives against others? This is not negative energy, but is sin. The cure is not to be connected with a glowing metaphysical “source” but to turn to Christ to heal you. The Bible says in 1 John that if we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. This is the only way to obtain peace in this life. All other methods will fail when you begin to realize that you can never get rid of the sin that prevades our minds and hearts. We need forgiveness and reconciliation to God, not “positive energy” from within ourselves.
I say with the prophet David,
“Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good. Blessed is the man that takes refuge in him!”
You have been programmed by the church…You are firm in your dogma and it has completely overtaken you… it’s not too late…
Both could be wrong.
It is amazing how so many people will stand up and use the Bible as the basis for why someone is preaching a “false philosophy”. They stand up and use it like it is some well known truth that can’t be disputed.
If you listen closely to what Wayne Dyer talks about, it all comes down to the power of thought and how the energy of thought creates the world we live in.
I personally have seen this concept work in mine and others lives.
I’m not someone who professes to know the ultimate truth but it drives me crazy when I see comments, like the one above, where someone starts preaching religous Dogma to prove a point like this. I can “cherry pick” the bible just like the respone above and show exactly why Wayne Dyer is onto something.
The Power of thought does change peoples lives and can be scientifically proven to show change in body chemistry and health.
That, to me, is energy in action.
KP, thanks for your comments. Could you please explain a few ideas within your post so I can be sure I’m understanding correctly? Thank you.
1. Why are you standing up and using science like it is some well known truth that can’t be disputed?
2. I have seen the power of Christ and the forgiveness of God work in my life and others as well. This being the case, stating that the philosophy of Dr. Dyer works in your life does not negate the Biblical testimony.
3. Why is it that you have chosen to criticize my use of religious dogma with dogma of your own?
“The Power of thought does change people’s lives and can be scientifically proven to show change in body chemistry and health.”
I have no problems with you speaking dogmatically, I’m just trying to figure out which kind you deem acceptable.
4. Please show me how what I have done in regard to the Bible quotation is “cherry-picking”, and please demonstrate how Dr. Dyer is onto something based on this Biblical hermeneutic.
I hope you realize you can find examples for absolutely everything in the Bible, including why it is acceptable to kill a man or woman and including having slave, and many other atrocities the Bible condones.
in regards to the two folks arguing about wayne and the bible…
if everyone would read his books cover to cover and keep an open mind, they would see that both dr. dyers’ books and the bible actually compliment each other and prove each other to be true!!
folks who practice the old time religeon will claim dyer is a sinner and tells lies. but dyer is guilty of no evil…if anything, he teaches us how to live life more christ-like!!
if you read the bible, jesus teaches the same doctrines just different phrasing. people couldn’t handle his teachings either which led to his crucifixion!
Tim,
I can see right where this conversation can go and I don’t think this is the right forum for this discussion. To keep this blog on track I apologize for being so antagonistic. I would be happy to discuss with you where I’m coming from and answer your questions in another forum.
With that said, I will get back to what this blog is about. Again it is the power of thought, believing, and creating the energy that makes things happen. Whether one chooses to believe that the power of Christ is responsible for creating that abundance in ones life or one believes he can pull from a field of energy, it doesn’t really matter. Both approaches can achieve what Wayne Dyer calls “creating an energy of abundance”. Jesus most certainly had very good teachings and I believe he did understand how to pull from this energy source. It is the way man has wrapped his own version around Jesus’ story I find hard to deal with.
Greg,
You are certainly right in saying that Jesus’ crucifixion was the result of people hearing things they couldn’t bear. However, what Jesus taught was nothing like what Dr. Dyer is saying. The fundamental difference is this: Dyer says to pull from the source, and Jesus claimed to be the source, hence the “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” statement, among many others that he made concerning his exclusivity. The ends to which these two teachers point us are radically different from one another. In the earlier posts I was taking issue with Dyer because I believe that he is pointing people to an inadequate source, namely themselves. It’s certainly not wrong for him to want to help people, and thinking positively is no evil. In fact, it is very beneficial as KP has already stated, but thinking positively is not the end that will give you lasting peace, meaning in life, freedom from guilt(not just the feeling of it), and the ability to truly love your neighbor as Jesus commanded that we do. According to what he taught, we must be given a new heart which comes by grace through faith in who Jesus is and what he did. I too apologize if I came off too strongly to anyone in the first post, but being this was my conviction I felt I had to say something. If you do not agree with me, I won’t hold it against you, but I will take issue with the notion that these two veins of teaching can be reconciled.
Dyer walks around up there on stage bitting his lip, pushing up against his teeth with his tongue, pulling this stuff out from his nether region, and then ladles some Sufi white sauce on it, and garnishes it with a sprinkling of Buddhism.
If you want the real thing go to Japan and join a monastery. If you ask the meditation master to help you connect with the source energy, he’ll wack you with a stick and tell you to go scrub the kitchen floor.
The judge….Yes master…
Attitude and close-mind are the kind of negative energy Dr. Dyer talks about that we need to move away from. Having a defensive attitude will not allow to see or listen others people’s ideas. If you want to see how powerful the mind is to create energy, you just need to look over a background of any successful profesional athlete such as Lance Armstrong. His powerful will and positive attitude help him to overcome illness and won 7 tours of France.
Medicine also helped.
More comments from the know-nothing… Thanks for the laughs buddy… Yes oh mighty master..
I watched Dr. Dyer yesterday on PBS, and I was moved. He reconciled many faiths by finding similarities between different tenets and ideas, and in a time like ours, where religion is such a cause for debate and hate, I was very impressed with Dr. Dyer’s open pluck.
Also, as PH says, Dyer is talking about philosophy, it’s not religion.
Finally, if you wish to agree or disagree it is your choice, but I don’t feel like people should discredit him just because they don’t understand his ‘language’, because believe it or not, I felt every word he said. Maybe I’m weird, or maybe I just get him…?
Also, for those who think Dr. Dyer is posing as a prophet, first and foremost, he never claimed to be one.
Just because he is confident in his teachings, and that some people agree with him doesn’t mean that he suggests to have all of the answers.
He is just a man speaking out on what he has learned through his life, and regardless of what you think of his teachings, just because he has 8 kids and two ex-wives doesn’t mean that he is any less credible, it just means he’s human and goes through troubles just like the next person.
It’s also okay to believe in different faiths all at once.
For example, believe it or not, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all connected to some degree in theory, the differences are in the way people interpret their respective faiths. That doesn’t mean that the faiths themselves are faulty, but that in fact, it is up to us, as followers of faiths, if we are indeed, followers of any faith, to interpret each faith as we see fit, without hurting others who have the same right to follow whichever faith.
Don’t forget athiesm, agnosticism, buddhism, taoism, hinduism, chinese folk religion, sikhism, juche, bahai faith, jainism, shinto, cao dai, pagan, tenrikyo and aftrican tradidional religions. Can they all be right?
“The stage is too big for the drama.”
Truth is exclusive by nature, therefore they most certainly cannot all be true at the same time, since each makes an absolute truth claim sooner or later. Certain religions may have terminology that is related, but beyond that, they differ greatly from one another. This is especially true of Christianity when set next to any other faith.
Dave,
After reading your first comment in this blog, it doesn’t surprise me to see why you would question someone like Wayne Dyer and believe what he has to say is nothing more then “Mumbo Jumbo”. The first time I heard him I was also skeptical. I can only imagine that after all the schooling you have had and your work in Quantum physics, I’ve read your Bio and it is quite impressive, that you are either an Atheist or Agnostic by now. Doesn’t really matter but people with your back ground typically go down one of those paths. What I can tell you though is that you will get to a point in your life and you will wonder what this life is all about. You probably have already reached that point. Regardless, with your back ground in Quantum Physics aren’t you struck with amazement how unless there is an observer in this reality, reality becomes …. Exactly, becomes what?
I don’t have near the knowledge you have in Quantum physics but what I have learned about it is what made me really look for “What is this life all about?” You can probably tell from my previous post, I don’t think very highly of the popular organized religions. I don’t believe Wayne Dyer knows all the truth either but I can say assuredly, the power of positive thought and knowing that something will happen, whether one believes that this is pulling from some source like some people believe, or it’s something else entirely, really does work. If he wants to call it “energy of abundanceâ€, fine with me. I just know it works. I do meditate and actively focus on what I want in my life. Since I started doing this, things happen in my life on a regular basis that most people would never believe. I guess what I’m trying to say is if you can get beyond the “mumbo jumbo”, there really is something there.
By the way, how do you ever find time to right on all these blogs? I see you are an avid skier, as I am myself. You should do yourself a favor. Stop typing and go skiing!
Hey KP,
The role of the observor in quantum physics is a very interesting subject. But I’m affraid that it is one issue that has been more often been mutalated into something very strange by mainstream “spiritualists”. Indeed, consider your statements about positive thinking and the role of the observor. One interpretation of the role of quantum physics is that an observor can “influence” reality. But this actually is just as true in classical physics as it is in quantum physics (an example for the experts: contextual theories are easy to create by just assuming that classical information about what is being observed affects the information being observed)! So you don’t need quantum physics to justify the belief that you, as some crazy strange entity in this universe, have an impact on shaping how the rest of the universe acts. And this is the kind of thing I was sort of what I was aluding to in my post: many people, try to dress up their discussions of “ways to live” by a bunch of mumbo jumbo talk which often uses the vocabulary of science and physics in particular. And from a scientists perspective this seems often seems really kind of comical because it is pretty clear that they don’t understand the science they are discussing. Now I don’t spend much of my time listening to Dr. Dryer, but his use of the word energy is funny bording on nonsensical to most scientists.
Now, all of this is not to say that I don’t disagree with you that positive thinking isn’t probably something imporant for how you live your life. Someday I think we may even understand why this is so! But I don’t think you need to appeal to physics to justify this. I think you can appeal to the wisdom of many who have taken this path, to a sense of what you think is moral and clear in this world, and to examples and counterexamples you might witness in your own life. But these things aren’t within the relm of science…yet!
And yes, indeed I should be spending less time typing and more time skiing!
Please heed your own advice and go ski.. Leave the intelligence discussions for the intelligent…
Dave,
First thanks for writing back. I am still trying to understand your example of “Contextual theoriesâ€. I’ve looked up a bit of information on it but still trying to grasp what it means. I’ll have to study it a little more.
Anyway, you are right about mainstream “Spiritualists†grabbing on to their interpretation of what this so called “Energy of Abundance†is and trying to back up their claim by interjecting terms from science to give it validity. I think this is more down the roads of philosophy then a religion and how much truth there really is to this has only been measured by what people perceive to be a truth. I started listening to him and others that were touting the same ideals and began to see a lot of what I call good “Moral Truths†intertwined with pseudoscience. This is a great recipe for capturing a hungry audience that wants to understand why we are here. The crazy thing is that when you really do get into this calm state and focusing on what you want and do it from a an unselfish position, it almost seems magical how the right things in your life start happening to fulfill your dreams. What I would like to see is some real science behind this. I could never prove that I’m pulling from some “higher source†or “energy†but with the type of work you do, you might be able to make sense of this one day. I am very interested in real science producing experiments and getting results that explain this strange world we live in.
Again, thanks for your post.
After reading all the posts, I am inclined to say a few things.
First of all…it does not matter what your faith is. I have met some Christians who do not act or speak in any way shape or form in a Christ-like manner. I have met Buddhists who do aknowledge and respect the teaching of Christ. I have met Hindu’s who have taught me a great deal about connecting to my source. With any religion, it is doctrine…thought form. you take from it what you feel is your truth. It does not matter what path we take….we are all led to the same source. There is no religion that is the “whole truth”. Meaning that they are not complete.
Wayne Dyer is universal in his teachings and this is refreshing. I see no harm in his thoughts or actions. We live in a world that is chaotic. Things need to change. Dogma has not helped. Spituality is all about understanding that the inner peace is within…and it is not something you can find…because it is already there. It just takes a little “re-membering” to bring us back to who and why we are here.
There is a divine paln and it is happening right on schedule. There is a universal intelligence that does not make mistakes. Call it God, call it energy, call it whatever you feel comfortable with, or what you feel is your truth. There is no right or wrong. The greatest teachers and masters that have walked this earth have tried to tell us this. But our huge human ego’s think we have to change it to fit whatever doctrine we feel that will ultimately control the masses. There always seems to be someone/some way who/it has to be right and making others wrong wehter this be in a belief system or what you decide to watch on TV.
Also, I am not comfortable AT ALL with naysayers who have to debate issues with quoting scripture.
Speak from your heart. If you don’t like watching Dr. Wayne Dyer…your TV set has on OFF button.
We are connected from and by the same source. So many beings feel they have to be better than others. There is no need for this. This planet is in dire need of a global transformation.
I applaude the Wayne Dyer’s of the world….because it is their positive outlook, their shared trial and tribulations that bring us to the understanding that we are all ONE on this planet…and for that matter with the Universe.
May we all find peace and love in our hearts.
Namaste.
“We must be the change we want to see in the World”
~Gandhi~
I gather then, angelessence, that you believe there is no such thing as absolute truth?
Dyer’s ideas really bring good results, peace and content. This and nothing else matters.
Enjoy your lives on Earth while you have them, and do not engage in foolish disputes.
Greetings from a successful follower 😀
Some believe that there is more to life than peace and content. Further if a belief system tells you things that make you happy but also are untrue and keep others from being happy is that okay?
1.What is more than peace and content ?
2.What is not true in Dyer’s ideas ?
3.What do you mean by keeping others from being happy ?
1. Strife. Suffering. Famine. Desire. Progress. Evolution. Change.
2. “Spirititual energy is the energy of abundance.†What, persay, is “spirtual energy?” I’m fine with just thinking that this is metaphorical, but it certainly doesn’t fall into the relm of things we can experiment about. (Of course my definition of true is very different, probably, than most others definitions of true!)
3. Some belief systems impose their view of the world upon others. For example, you might believe that peace and contentment are the end goal of life. I however don’t find this true and find that there is more to be gained in a robust society which is not content with its place in the universe. Certainly one could say, “fine let us just get along” but I am part of a community and this community makes me larger and if this community is content, then I am at a loss.
The issues that people have who do not care for writers, speakers, or leaders such as Wayne Dyer is that they are looking for concrete “double blind” proof before they will believe.
This limits the mind. It separates science from the rest of life. The real truth is that what we are really talking about here is low minded scientist (or people who would like to think of themselves as scientist). High minded scientist already recognize that the universe can not be contained in a labratory (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, the “Copenhagen Interpretation”, Non linear dynamics, fractal geometry, chaos theory, super string theory).
Wayne Dyer’s message falls on deaf ears to these low minded “scientist” because there frame of reference has no way to comprehend what does not occur in a linear fashion, which “spiritual enery” certainly does not occur in linear ego time. It operates on the real level of the non-linear.
If the thoughts that you created were positive (including the ones on this website) you may have had a chance to see underneath your words into the “energy” you seek. However with the quantum physics mentality you readily deny yourself the exsistance of things you cannot see.
As your picture shows you skiing over the cliff, the moment you at your happiness, as so the power of your thought. Just some of us choose to be more content at all times than just a given few in the snow. As all of us, you have much to learn.
Yep that “quantum physics mentality” is horrible stuff. You know science and all that junk just gets in the way of getting high.
Ah yes, “linear ego time.” Such BS. “Non linear dynamics, fractal geometry, chaos theory, super string theory.” Look! Big words!
You have every right to ridicule what you deem “big words.” In fact, this writer would expect no more of a skeptic. The question remains though, what word is big? Dynamics? Geometry? Non linear?
Your retort to the position laid out by this writer previously, however, is less than complete. Your response only illustrates the intellectual immaturity that my post discusses. Those who don’t understand concepts that they are unable or unwilling to learn (because of their proud positions) have the same response as a wise ass ten year old, who assumes he knows everything, but in fact, (as everybody around him recognizes) knows nothing. But to point out to the little brat his error, is a waste of time.
Furthermore, this writer takes issue with David O. In my estimation it is not a “Quantum Physics Mentality” that limits Dave Bacon, in fact, this autor would propose that is quite the opposite; it is a lack of “Quantum Perspective,” not an overabundance that is limiting Dave Bacon. Just because Dave Bacon purports to “Quantum Mechanics,” does not mean he understands the minds of Niels Bohr or Werner Heisenberg. It is, in fact, this author’s proposition that Dave Bacon claims a “Quantum Philosophy,” but instead lives a “Newtonian Mechanical” existence. However, his claim to be the “Quantum Pontiff” does demonstrate his potential for growth.
“If any man has ears to hear, let him hear” Jesus Christ – The Gospel According to Mark Chapter 4
Dave, you call “linear ego time” BS – yet you have written a book review on the subject of Kurt Gobel? Do you really understand or do you just like the idea of being smart?
MC: you must have me mistaken with someone else. I’ve never written a book review on Kurt Gobel. Perhaps you mean Kurt Godel? And I never claimed to be smart, that was you lecturing me, not the other way around. But thanks for calling me a low minded scientist!
I apologize for the error. In the future I will attempt to be more accurate. I further apologize for the “lecture.” I am sure that you, and the readers of this blog, are quite fine without the disturbances of my vain opinions.
Don’t apologize for sharing your view! While I certainly disagree with the majority of comments ont his post, I certainly think having the comments here is worthwhile. I do worry however that this post comes up on the first page on Googling “Dr. Wayne Dryer” I have nor real animosity towards the fellah, just that his particular brand of self-help/spirituality isn’t my cup of tea. And my original intention in the post was to be funny to the group that reads this blog, mostly theoretical physists. To us it is rather amusing/anoying that a large class of self-help/spiritual speakers have coopted words for their own totally out of context use. Metaphor is fine, but out of context metaphor to boost your authority is (IMHO, of course) just silly.
Fair enough Dave; to clarify I haven’t read any Wayne Dyer, I was googling his name to find out about him and this site was on the first or second page. I was apologizing not for expressing myself, but for the vanity that “I was right and you were wrong.”
The frustration I was expressing is the perception that I have about “Theoretical Physicist”…mainly that they “know about” the mechanics of the universe and yet cannot appreciate the wisdom literature (Gospels, Lao Tzu, Zen Buddhism, Vedas, Meister Eckhardt). In fact it amazes me that men who could understand such magnificent and beautiful concepts could ridicule the “spiritual” nature of existence.
I do find appealing many of the thoughts and feelings about how to live life that are present in what you call the wisdom literature. On the other hand, I have little use for mysticism or claims to authority in this literature. And I don’t find much use at all crossing between the boundaries of physics and the boundaries of human concerns except in so much as the later better not conflict with the former. So mostly it is probably this later view which gets me into trouble!
I probably get in to trouble with my need to eliminate boundaries.
Dr. Dyer is a member of humanity. As is anyone reading or responding to this post. He has no answers only ideas, which is all any of us have. We are all part of humanity, none greater, none less, regardless of the “weight” we give our ideas. If we take anything from religions teachings take that in and of themselves they mean little. If I am a buddist, does your believe change mine. Have I found any great truth that grants me autonomy over non-beleivers. And what if I was a Christian, would I know be greater than you, would my knew found relationship now mean that from a sinlge notion, my soul is more valuable than yours. Or would my embracing Islam bring me closer to bliss. Would it grant me the peace that all other religions lack. It couldn’t possibly. We were none of these things in the womb. We are none of these things now. We are. We are humans. Our humanity is that of joined experience. Though different we may be do you not expereince life? Emotion? Do you not have ideas of pain, joy, achievment? Dr. Dyer is simple sharing what HIS insight has for those who are open to embrace it. He another member of humanity, as are you. How about sharing your innsight with us.
Dr. Dyer is yet another in the short history of man trying to build a new Tower of Babel. Rather than a physical tower, he thinks we can reach the heavens by using this “source”. Tim is correct, the source is Jesus Christ and we must go through Him to reach heaven and get back to our Father. Dr. Dyer uses slight deviations from the truth to mislead people into believing they control their destiny, the same slight deviation that Satan used in the garden to decieve Eve.
I agree as Tim noted, …the source is Jesus Christ and we must go through Him to reach heaven and get back to our Father.” I also believe that Dr. Dyer opens up the hearts of thousands to this way of thinking and doing thus it potentially leads many to find Jesus Christ.
Ah quite the gammit. From Dr. Dyer as the path towards Jesus Christ, to Dr. Dyer as the path towards Satan, to Dr. Dryer as just another guy sharing his experience, to Dr. Dyer as an exploiter of science, to Dr. Dyer the bringer of peace and contentment, to Dr. Dyer as Budha-lite.
Maybe…instead of “pontificating” on Dr. Dyer and his “message” and “motivation”, we should go outside and fall in a river and be mad at ourselves when the water is cold.
“We’ve all been waitin’, wonderin’, will we ever know the truth?”
http://www.livewidespreadpanic.com
I ain’t ridiculing what they need (which apparently, according to your perspective, is “understanding”), I was, way way way way back at the top of this page, in my post, pointing out exactly that the word energy has many different meanings, but that it is funny that other words which scientists used, you know, the ones not a single person in this ebntire thread has commented on except Wim at the very top, have not been coopted to the same extent.
But to your other point (see no one wants to talk with me about the use of the renormalization group in spirtiual conversations), I think some perspectives are more limiting that others.
Energy: a capacity for acting or being active that is within a person.
Many people can’t help but look at the world from one specific entrenched perspective. So now we have a message board illustrating this point.
Aren’t all perspectives limiting? Wouldn’t you rather understand than be correct!
Indeed, why must the Dave Bacons of the world ridicule that which they need most dearly?
Hehehe. Well, when you asked why the terms Hamiltonian and Lagrangian have not been coopted by the masses, I assumed you were being facetious. Every field has its terminology. That does not mean that the terminology is useful or descriptive. When you suggest that I am off-topic, perhaps you are just trying to protect yourself from truly thinking about what I’m saying. When people have the attitude that they completely understand something, they are no longer open to learning. Yes, Dave Bacon, I am suggesting here that you are ridiculing spiritual definitions of energy and clinging to your own (limiting) scientific definition so that you won’t have to think about something that might challenge your world-view.
Every human being is looking for something. When you find Jesus, you find everything you have ever wanted. Try Him, just speak to Him wherever you are and ask Him to reveal Himself to you, then you will know the truth (Jesus) and the truth will set you free from all this searching. “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Jesus said. He did not speak of truth, He is truth itself. And just before you jump on me for bringing in religion, there was not a religious born in Jesus Christ, that is a man-made thing. He came as the king and taught about the Kingdom. He spoke also about the Wayne Dyers of this world, (And I do not hate Wayne, it is not Christ-like to do so) Here is what Jesus said of all like him ”
The Apostle Peter warns 2 Pt. 2:1-3: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.â€
“There will also be false teachers among you.†false teachers can be very effective communicators; they can have a personal magnetism. They use smooth and flattering speech to bring you into their bondage; they present their teaching cleverly, very smoothly.
If you are a Christian, Christ said to beware of false teachers like these. Pray for discernment of the Holy Spirit that dwells in you. If you are not a christian, don’t just blow me off, ask Christ to reveal Himself to you so you can make an informend decision. Now you know and you cannot unknow the truth. God says “I am God, I change not.” We have made God out to be different things, if you disagree, check with God’s word in the King James Version Bible and know that anything that exalts itself above the knowledge of God is to be cast down. What Wayne Dyer is proffessing is not scriptural. That is what is wrong with it, it leads people to another source which is self when only God is our source. We must not exalt ourselves above God. Thanks and be blessed.
dr. wayne speaks the same truth jesus spoke… and runs into the same pharisees jesus ran into… if you had ears to hear, you’d hear the truth.
I have no problem being told I am close minded with regard to spiritual definitions. It is true! I also don’t think it is bad, however, which is where we certainly differ.
If you want to see then open eyes are necessary. If you want to understand then an open mind is necessary.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain with themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. –Bertrand Russell
I listened to this guy lecture and it was the most worthless rambling I have ever heard.
No specifics, just generalizations and no structure or message. I some it up as think positive thoughts and something positive will happpen. Whup tee Do!
For people who are sold on the worldly teachings and are not willing to hear the absolute truth of Jesus, that is ok you can skip this post, on judgement day you will answer to Him. To those who are Christians and have not realized what is wrong with teachings like Wayne Dyers’ hang with me for a few minutes. I listened to his TV presentations especially power of intention more than twelve times a few years ago and read several of his books cover to cover and loved them until I decided to read the bible cover to cover and learn to walk with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Then i realized how his theories fall under false teachings.
Dyer in his teachings draws alot from the teachings of Yogananda who after he graduated from Calcutta University in 1915, took formal vows as a monk of India’s venerable monastic Swami Order, at which time he received the name Yogananda. If you are a Christian, know this has nothing to do with Christ.
Dyer also is an avid reader of and pulls from the Hindu sacred text which is presented as transcendental knowledge of the most profound spiritual nature as revealed in the Bhagavad – Gita. It is the divine discourse spoken by the Supreme Lord Krishna Himself and is the most popular and well known of all the sacred scriptures from ancient India. Always being revered as a true source of spiritual knowledge. while as Christians, we believe in the bible as the incorruptible, indestructible, ever-living word of God so if you profess Christ as your Lord, you don’t want to be mixed up with these subtle teachings of other ‘lords’ like lord Krishna
Dyer also quotes Sufi principles. Sufism or tasawwuf, as it is called in Arabic, is generally understood by scholars and Sufis to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam. If you are a Christian brother or sister, I appeal to you to not be seduced by these seemingly good and useful teachings. They teach you to depend on yourself and makes God unnecesary. They do not teach you the gospel truth of Jesus Christ the son of the most high God. The only reason teachers like this mention Jesus is sow it is appealing to Christ’s followers who may be ignorant of God’s view.
Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”
Proverbs 9:8 “Never correct conceited people, they will hate you for it. But if you correct the wise, they will respect you.”
Proverbs 3:5-7 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil.”
Proverbs 14:12 “What you think is the right road may lead to death.
If you are a Christian, just as you read Wayne Dyers books cover to cover, curl up with a bible and read it cover to cover and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. For only the truth you KNOW will set you free. If you have ears, hear what the Lord is saying.
I think you are all exactly where you need to be as I am as well and so is Wayne. I personally find him most inspirational and a wonderful spirit who has found his purpose here and is living to serve. Look for the good and that is what you shall see. Look for the bad and you shall see that too.
-Stacy
You all missed the point again. It’s all about Morality. Each person has a spark of being Divine inside themselves. That spark (spirit)
makes all of us on planet earth in the same boat.
Therefore, being created by the same source we should love each other (that is love your neighbor as yourselves) and love the God that created that spirit from the beginning. That God is Yahweh ( Jehovah )! It has nothing to do with science. Thanks, Mike
Never trust anyone with a Dr. before their name.
— Dr. Dave Bacon
Just when an interesting discussion is threatening to break out, people come flying in with quotes from the friggin bible. Maybe the point of the story of jeebus is that people should keep an open mind, and not crucify those that put forth ideas that don’t fit into some accepted ideology. After all, jeebus himself didn’t quote the bible in his teachings. Why should you?
I have just published an article on my blog site called “Finding God With Wayne Dyer” about his recent book The Power of Intention and his descent from fairly sound self-help into Snake Oil salesmanship and the peddling of religious mumbo-jumbo. Here is a link
Interesting debates. It appears to me the Dr. Dyer is encouraging us all to re-associate/connect with our Source (remember the example of the apple slice originating from the apple pie so it must be apple pie…I hope you imagine your Source to be more expansive, infinite than apple pie…but if you don’t, OK..be free to be).
In reference to all major religions, they all seem to have as many variations in perspective as there are different types of vehicles. I don’t think any “religion” has a hold on all truth. HOWEVER, I believe Truth exists and is best observed in an individual who is free to be with out self-condemnation, self-defamation, self-exaltation, etc. or need for un-loving judgement or demeaning of others.
If you believe in God’s sovereignty (infinite intelligence) and the Spirit of God residing in each individual, then it may not be a stretch for some to “believe” God perfectly capable of stringing a series of words and incidents together through various sources which reflect that Spirit. If we believe God infinite, then it is quite odd for some to try to condense that essence into one person. The Bible contains a lot of the pertinent things Christ said but by God I think Christ still speaks and He does so through many individuals who are of His essence whether they acknowledge it or not (It’s the Bible who says who are we to judge whether the Potter choses some pottery for honor and some for dishonor (dishonor versus honor may be used because our thinking consistently thinks of everything as good OR bad).
Just one scripture group that may help express what Dyer and Tolle and others may be trying to say. Those living in Spirit and Truth but don’t acknowledge it as Christ… Romans 2:14-16 (Apostly Paul speaking)
14: For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
It’s the Spirit of Christ that these speakers are re-connecting too and they are so excited. The words of man are limited in their ability to fully disclose/describe/define this state but ALAS we all try. Thank God for scientists, philosophers, prophets, teachers who have experienced the freedom of operating according to divine purpose. You know Truth when you hear it. EGO wants to destroy it or alter it, Spirit wants to embrace it as it is. OK, next… Blessings to you all as you seek the Truth that sets you free. FreetoBe
Stopped watches are right twice a day. There ought to be empirical support for a position before relying on it. Dyer went like Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale from being right to being richer.
A few points:
1. The person that pointed out above that Dr. Dyer’s main flaw is that he presents his ideas as “truth” and not as opinion I think really gets to the heart of the problem with his lectures. If we cannot not back something up with reason, then we might as well believe anything that someone says. That does not mean reason can prove everything, but I do not see the point is accepting just any idea because of reasons’ shortcomings. It’s our best defense against non-truth.
2. Science as a basis for an argument cannot be compared to using the bible as a basis. Religion claims truth rather than seeks it. It is not self-correcting when it gets something wrong. When wrong, the religious defend their position rather than change. Science, by definition, constantly challenges itself and when wrong changes its position. Science has been right far more than religion ever has. Religion would still have the earth flat, at the center of the universe, and the sun revolving around us rather than the other way around. Religion has a long history of fearing what science has proven.
Finally, Dr. Dyer once wrote that authority deserves to be questioned. However, if you read his writings closely he does not like to be challenged when that authority is him. He likes to be skeptical of conventional thinking, but in the same breath derides skepticism of his ideas as “low energy” rather than address the challenges.
He once wrote that ESP was more than coincidence because he asked a group of students to raise their hands if they ever had the experience of that while thinking of someone that someone suddenly called. A majority raised their hands. And that was enough for him to draw a conclusion. However, if he would have asked those same students to “raise your hand if you’ve ever thought of someone and they didn’t call you while you were thinking of them,” it would have probably contradicted his conclusion. But that is how he operates. He never really addresses challenges except for the occasional off-putting remarks such as “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Or claiming that someone is just too bound to their “Earth Guide Only” (EGO).
By the way, on a personal note so you know where my comments above are coming from, I have read every book (all of them more than once) Dyer has put out since 1976, and have listened to every lecture he has recorded. When I was 19 I believed what he wrote. Now with 30 more years of life under my belt, I realize how wrong he is and has been in so much of what he claims. His basic tenet in his philosophy of “what you think about, you become” has not proven in my life or the majority of others I know. For many years I thought this was true, but the fact is you can put many years into something only to get “experience.” (I guess he would argue that I did get something and that there really is no “failure.” But that is basically side-stepping his point about “abundance.”)
But he will never acknowledge the evidence that contradicts his claims. There are many, many people who find a sudden “abundance” based on the circumstances they just happened to find themselves in and did not create through thought. (Is it safe to say that Paris Hilton has found “abundance” in life?) We all know people who find themselves doing something well in life that they never put any real thought into; it just happened. And then there are plenty of examples of people who build a life around their thoughts and work and find nothing even near “abundance.” That is because “abundance” is decided by those around you. If others don’t like what you do (for whatever reason), “abundance” will never “materialize.” You look at all this and realize it’s hit and miss. There is no clear evidence that what you focus your mind on brings about “abundance.” Otherwise, why are there so many talented yet starving artists in the world? Ironically, Dyer’s good friend, Ram Dass, is one of those. He poured his life into what he believed and “abundance” never found its way to his doorstep.
Something I found true for a lot of people who find financial success in their lives are blind to any luck or coincidence that help create it. They come to believe their “abundance” came solely from them and not others. The fact his, his success was because millions of others each decided individually to buy a copy of “Your Erroneous Zones.” Yes, he put out the work, but it was the public’s acceptance of that work that created that abundance. You can put out all the work you want into the world and non of it will “bring you abundance” until that world decides on their own, for their own reasons, that they like it. I do not know how he can ignore that part of the equation.
Arent’t Religions too much dogmatical ? Influenced by them, don’t people lose their real inner purpose and outer pratice to turn to supercicial social attitudes ? And isn’t the result a lack of coherence between real actions and what is so openly asserted ? : what about a nun being a liar, for example, does it not mean she has not achieved anything at all ? Does it not mean she has met “nothing” but a sort of useless void and she is just another “phoney” ? Now, if this type of doubtful experience happens to some ordinary person will it not be an incentive to quit all those religious fields ?
Wayne Dyer seems to offer his reader to make a real concrete experience, which spiritual aspects should lead to. His language is beyond words. It gives images to precise and describe what could be done and how it could be done. Putting it into practive is probably the only response. Even if building a theory is interesting, is the average reader really attracted by that or mainly by practical positive consequences in his everyday life ?
The greatest problem with Dr. Dyer’s message is his inability (described by him as unwilling rather than unable) to prove his most fundamental principle. His fundamental message in everything he writes or verbalizes is that you can do anything you set your mind to. So, my challenge can he personally demonstrate that? He proclaims to do so but only with very weak examples. For example, he claims he teachers regarded him as a poor writer and speaker, but look at him today. That is a weak example in my opinion. That is, being better at something than others thought you were as a child is a long, long way off being *anything* (and he emphasizes anything even to the point that he says he teaches his kids to move clouds with their minds) you want. I, too, beat the expectations of my teachers. This is a common claim. There are probably millions who can claim that and therefore is hardly extraordinary enough to prove his point.
I would think that if he wanted to be convincing of his message he would, for the sake of example: make an unprecedented contribution to mathematics, or solve the quantum mechanics puzzle (actually, he shows that he really does not understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), or become an NBA star, etc. Something that would normally be considered impossible by conventional standards. But he does not. Instead his examples are, “and they said I could not write this book [Wisdom of the Ages] in 60 days.” Well, again, that is a long way from doing the “impossible.” Or that he jumped a fence at 50 years old because he forgot that he was 50. His examples are everyday things that millions do. All he is doing is lowering the standard for what he wants to call “impossible” and then claims we are seeing examples of “impossibility” all around us.
The fact is that his claim that anyone can do anything (i.e., “manifest it”) is a big lie. Ironically, a chapter in one of his books entitled “The Big Lie” claims that the conventional wisdom that we have limitations is the “big lie.” Actually, his claim is not only a lie that he himself cannot prove, but gives false hope to many who could be much happier and more productive should they learn to accept their limitations. An example of this is can be seen at the beginning of each season of “American Idol.” Every year we see examples of thousands of people who have absolutely no singing ability at all say after rejection, “I know I can do this. I know I have greatest within in me and I’m going to pursue my dream regardless of what others say.” (All things Dyer would say, too.) Well, since it is others who do not think they can sing, they’re deluding themselves. No matter how much they think they can sing, the fact these people simply do not and will never possess the talent to sing. Their efforts are in vain. They would be so much better off pursuing something else; knowing their limitations. Yes, there will be a few who surprise us and actually make it beyond the odds, but that does not prove the point that anyone can achieve anything. In fact, that proves there is luck within circumstances because most of these people will not achieve success and will waste years through frustration of pursuing something they cannot do. If Dyer is right, then we can expect to be hearing on the radio these thousands of wannabe singers despite their poor singing skills. Anyone want to bet we won’t be hearing from them at all?
My point is not that people should not try to do the difficult. My point is they people need a realistic self-image, first, and that is based on how others see them, too. (Success actually comes from others not from yourself. No one is successful on a planet where no one else exists. Acceptance by others is what success means. If you do not believe that, then let me operate on you because “I have a knowing” that I am a doctor, even though others do not believe I am. My bet is you wont let me touch you regardless of what I think because it is what others think that matters.) My other point is understanding your limits (e.g. not wasting your time trying to be a professional singer when your voice makes others cringe) is critical to healthy development. This is not the fear of failure I’m talking about, but understanding your circumstances well enough to know what would work for you. Having limitations and knowing them is good and healthy; believing you can do anything is self-delusional and, ultimately, self-defeating.
There will always be a few exceptional people who do something we think is impossible. And they do serve as an inspiration to us all. But this is my main departure from Dyer: that in no way can be extrapolated to anyone else can do it, too. What can be extrapolated is there is luck and coincidence in the world: being born with a great singing voice is not a choice but luck; being born with an high level ability to solve abstract equations as a child is luck; being born with the gift of art is luck; etc.
Another criticism I have of Dyer is that he simply lowers the standard for what can be considered “genius” to prove that “genius” is all around us: children who make up their own languages is one of his examples. Another is his daughter’s ability to train horses. Genius by definition means what only a few can do. If anyone can do something it is not “genius.” His examples are not examples of “genius.” If we go by his standard, then everyone is a genius (and he would probably agree with that). And if everyone is a genius, then actually no one is because there is nothing to separate abilities. Genius marks a level of ability against the efforts of the ordinary.
If Dr. Dyer is truly sincere in his message that anyone can do anything, then give us a real example. So us something truly convincing and not use debating tactics such as redefining words like “genius” to do it. Show something extraordinary on the terms of others not on your own.
how about leaving him alone and living your own lives. as dr. dyer would say, the only person you can control is yourself. his way of life works for him and he isn’t afraid to talk about it. we all have a choice to listen\read or NOT. thank you.
And we have a choice, no, a duty, to examine his claims and possible consequences. Would you not agree? If not, why not just also accept Bush’s (you can pick anyone here) ideology without examination? That is because it is through critique and examination that we defend ourselves against falsities. Dr. Dyer is not simply living his life and telling others, he out-and-out says he knows what’s best for us all. If the world is perfect as he says, why does he try so hard to change it all?
Dr. dyer teaches extending love and compassion to everyone and everything that comes our way. If you look deep into his teachings, he says you can manifest your destiny ONLY if you align yourself with the universal force (God). We, all human beings can relate to that. Nothing really happens(no manifestation) if we rely on our abilities and strength but on God. I am not pretending to know everything but i know that there is no comparison between bush and dyer. If we all submit to God(which is good and love), the world would have been a better place. And that is exactly what dr. dyer teaches. thank you. God bless
“We, all human beings can relate to that.”
I guess atheists and agnostics aren’t human beings 🙁
Thank you for your response, Abby. However, Dr. Dyer clearly lays out in “A Promise is a Promise” that one can manifest another’s destiny. This is what he and is family attempted to do for Edwarda, as a matter of fact; and to failing results. Her condition did not improve. Once again he did not prove is point and, moreover, never admits it publically.
There was a research experiment recently where the family of severely ill patients were asked to pray for their loved one’s recovery, and the other half asked not to pray their loved one’s recovery. The patients with the praying family members fared worse than the ones with family members who did not pray. This means either praying for others doesn’t work, or it’s coincidence to begin with.
Now, I know Dr. Dyer does not have much faith in scientific research, but he does use it when it supports something he already believes. For instance, he points out the scientific research that shows that when people are in presence of a positive act that their serotonin levels increase. Dr. Dyer, unfortunately, cherry picks his research: picks what supports his claims and disregards that which does not support him.
My point about Bush was that Dr. Dyer asks that we are open to all ideas. Should we be? Open to the teachings of Heaven’s Gate? Open to the hateful ideas of the KKK? My point was that if we are to accept any idea that anyone puts forth, without challenging it, questioning it, and critiquing it, then you have no reference to the truth and in fact can be blindly led to devastating consequences. (I’m not suggestion Dyer leads to devastating consequences, what I am saying is that with out critique of any idea that can be the result. Critique and reasoning is how one keeps out of trouble. So, my point is that challenging ideas is the only way one can seek truth and his ideas need to challenged.)
The followers of Heaven’s Gate could have lived had they simply used reason to question their leader’s claims. Dyer asks us to critique everyone but him. Question authority when he is not the authority; banish your doubts. But when it comes to others, say, President Bush, then by all means have your doubts.
Dyer sets up a circular reasoning system that allows him to avoid criticism. He will never admit when his ideas are wrong and he plainly says that he does not take challenges. While I believe he is personally honest, I believe his methods are not and does not appear to be smart enough to realize it. He creates a fool’s paradise. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Great remarks from both of you. yes, a promise is a promise and one can manifest ones destiny if they rely on the universal knowledge of the universe. That is the only way, and all of you seem to leave that fact out. I have never heard dr. dyer suggesting that we should rely on our selves (physical and mental abilities) but also on the spiritual. The spiritual part is hard to explain cuz it is a deep knowing in human’s heart. i can go on an on about the love of your own children but you will never know what it is like until you have children. It is one of those things. About prayer, if i pray for someone and they dont’ get healed, it doesn’t justify anything. It only means that the time for that person on earth has come to an end. Again, the only core teaching from Dr. dyer is LOVE. And the rest follows. I believe in results too, so if one person listens to his teachings and able to forgive another who harmed him, or if one learns how to love the other person with no judgement then i would say his work is done on earth. Lets focus on human value (love, compassion, forgiveness, helping one another, non judgemental attitudes) instead of material things. Yes dr. dyer also says, be open to everything but attached to nothing. That doesn’t include hatred or judgement of any kind.
Anyhow my point is, lets leave our ego behind and not argue for the sake of arguing. John, you read his teachings and you challenged it, but it doesn’t seem to work or YOU. But it works for so many others. so why don’t you just accept who he is and extend love towards him.
Dave, you picked just one phrase from my paragraphe and made it a point of argument. I didn’t say athiest aren’t human beings, but they have their own “non god” phylosophy. just cuz athiest believes that there is no God , it doesn’t make it true. I accept their way of life even if i dont’ agree with it. Let’s not judge eachother but let’s try to live with eachother in LOVE.
God bless
The Dyer approach predates most religions it started in the Garden of Eden and it was one of the two trees, guess which one. Hint, Not the tree of Life. The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil has an appeal and like the Dyer information it looks and taste good but in the absence of fellowship with the Almighty God it will not sustain a spiritual life. The error on Eve’s part was to rely on the thinking and feeling part of ourselves to obtain the position of Captain of our own destiny. .REAPEATED MOST NOTABLY BY NIMROD IN THE TOWER OF BABEL. Reality has it that they and we obtain the highest position when we have the same mind set that Jesus Christ has/had “let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus”. that mind set is obedience to and fellowship with the Creator that is our Father. Mary said “be it done unto me according to your word” that resulted in Mary bringing forth a Son that would manifest the Father and do His will. The Father has exalted the name of Jesus above every name that is named as Scripture records that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and ever tongue will confess his lordship. Getting in touch with the Christ that is indwelling connects us to the Fathers will and transcends good and evil and moves us to Righteousness, peace and joy. You guessed it the Kingdom of God is where it is happening. You can only have one King in a Kingdom the problem is everyone wants to be the chief and there are no Indians. As long as we are seeking our own, what’s in it for me, and my, me and mine the results are obvious. When we turn our life over to Jesus. in reality not just the motions than things start to change. We stop living the life that we created from our will and start living the life God has planned for us since the beginning. God starts to birth the new creation man in us who is the light in the world and a manifestation of God’s love in the earth. Most of this Dyer and new age, eastern etc is devoid of a personal relationship with the Source of our existence that is the Almighty God. They are trying to tap into the mind and emotional part of our being where we measure by what we see, smell and hear instead of tapping into the Christ who the bible says dwells in us. The same spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwells in us and it will make alive our mortal bodies. I believe the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth and all righteousness, peace and harmony. The Dyer method appears to circumvent the yielding part which is necessary to any real success ,happiness or fulfillment in our life. Remember the Tree of knowledge was not only evil it was a tree of judging good and evil. The bible teaches that we need to have our senses exercised to discern good from evil. That process takes a Spiritual connection with the Holy Spirit. The Natural mind doesn’t get it we need to use the Christ mind.
When electricity was first discovered as a power source any product being sold that could not be explained was attributed to “it works by electricity” The newness of this science is an invitation to make questionable claims. I have been hearing that our thoughts can effect the universe and can cause earthquakes and tsunamis, Butterfly effect?? I am not an expert , but it seems quantum science is trying to fill in the unexplained areas of physical science so if it can explain fantasy, great!. I do know our attitude can cause us a lot of grief but tsunamis, I think not. Having said all that. I would like to add that I was a viewer of Charlie Chan (remember his frequent references to Confucius), and an avid viewer of Kung Fu played by John Carridine a popular series. Many of the wise Dr Dyer statements are very familiar. They remind me of the proverbs we would often recite to help us with value judgments, some made a lot of sense. I would hesitate to call the ideas evil or bad just immature. I also see the correlation of the 60’s hippies. Bad vibes, your energy is taking me down. I don’t like the energy. I like your energy. I feel like I am receiving so much energy when I usually am drained by others having low energy. I lived through it but never got it but I never smocked any weed. Seems to me we should be giving people genuine answers,not displaying the world through rose colored glasses. If your being attacked I think the energy you should engage is fight or flight positive intentions may fall short for the moment we can hope later. We may all be ONE but its best to remove the bad apples out of the barrel. I can hear the energy people saying of my post “Bad Trip”
Jesus Christ!
Fellows….I lived on Maui for 10+ years…just left in April 07.
I saw Dyer in Detroit 25 years ago,…his spiel is the same, but more along the lines of his buddy Deepak Chopra.
…who ripped off the Maharishi (Beatles) and Ram Dass.
Dyer lost me w/ the current NPT hocking the $365. “Whole Enchilada”….saying he “had to get out of Kaanapali Maui, it was too much”…??? What the hell is he talking about? Ram Dass is in a wheel chair and George Harrison died who lived in Hana.
Maybe Maui is a portal to the infinite?
Glad I got out at 52.
Oh, and Jesus is NOT the ONLY way to God, you idiots!
Aloha.
Flying isn’t the only way to Maui, but it is a long swim or a lot of rowing. p.s. Most try to respect other peoples views, calling them idiots isn’t validating but reveals immaturity.
why won’t the dyer doctor name his source? if we came from this source then it seems if we have personality then “source” must also have personality but in a far greater reality. also what of forgiveness? men have made this world into a far from perfect place.
Prayer only works if it is God’s will.
P.S. By the way Dave, I have become quite fascinated with your area of expertise, quantum physics and such, over the last few years. Realizing that according to the Scriptures we are able to percieve and understand how the unseen {spirit] dimension functions, as we look closer and discern more clearly the inner workings of our physical realm and it’s governing properties! Recognizing that the latter was parented in the former! Just my way of sayin: “I enjoy your site!”
I find these discussions concerning Mr. Dyer and many of his “erroneous zoned” beliefs even more confirming to the “absoluteness” of truth that Jesus spoke. For man made wisdom void of absolute truth always tends to breed but more confusion! A couple of things that sets Jesus’ credentials apart from all others is this: His virgin birth at one end and His resurrection from the dead at the other concerning His manifested life here in the earth. Two well documented and substaniated realities! The problem from Jesus’ teachings perspectve concerning Mr Dyer’s views is the absence of dealing with man’s real problem, his “sin” condition introduced into the human bloodline back in the Garden. I’m wondering if Mr Dyer agrees with Jesus’ statement: “You must be born again?” That being said, I will give Mr. Dyer some credit for doing his humanistic best to try to explain how to function in the reality of what Jesus did teach, that being: “All things are possible to him that believes!”
“Two well documented and substaniated realities!”
By well documented I’m sure you mean all the contemporary accounts of this by the historians of the day.
“Prayer only works if it is God’s will.”
Head’s I win, tales you lose.
Historical authentication takes many sources into account to arrive at what it considered actual, proven, factual history. That being said, there is as much “evidence” of the two accounts mentioned as there is…say… Alexander the Great ever lived and plundered! Prayer only works if it is God’s will? True that! One need only to look into God’s Word and they will discover His will. And in that He is no respector of persons, the clearer truth is that Jesus always placed the emphasis on an individual’s faith as the determining factor in answered prayer. [Matthew 21,22] But wait a minute… faith begins where the will of God is known, so in the knowing of His Word one can only then pray in faith, thus be empowered to believe for the answer! And according to Jesus…believing is the prerequiste for receiving! (Mark 11:24) Heads or tails I still win!
Wayne Dyer demonstrated his true nature in a PBS appearance when he told the story about trying to get a lot of books on the airplane (more than he should), and how he would use his ‘techniques’ on the attendant and have her ‘eating out of his hand’. Eating out of his hand? When you try and imitate Christ, and you’re no Christ, you make mistakes. That’s what it’s about, getting people to eat out of your hand.
I agree with Robert R. When I watched Mr Dyer recall that story, I was dismayed. It felt very manipulative. And at that point all I could see was a man with a huge ego. It felt like his true colors peeked through….
The best bumper sticker I ever saw was, “Jesus please save me from your followers”. After reading the majority of these posts, I am reminded why I love that sticker so much. I betcha’ Jesus is up there pulling for Wayne and all of us crazy fools for that matter. Obviously “the creator” has a great sense of humor.
I’ll take the evidence of Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin et al over Josephus and Tacitus any day, not to mention that the later never mention a virgin birth.
Yes, heads or tails you still win! Isn’t it fun to win at a game you’ve rigged? “The stage is too big for the drama.”
Oh, and thanks for the kind words about my site, although I’ll bet you can guess that I don’t think quantum physics has much to say about spirituality. Call me a young grump 🙂
No Dave, that’s the beauty of truth. The Creator rigged the whole deal concerning securing eternal life for us through the gift of the Son. All He asks us to do it simply take Him at His word in childlike faith and humility. No doubt, we can’t find God with that head of ours, man did I try…then I discovered that’s what our hearts are for! The stage is not nearly as big as what lies at the end of the production: eternity! Either Jesus is who He said He was and therefore spoke the truth or He is not and He didn’t. I guess for me, when I chose to believe He was and did, I found myself put in that position of a man with a lifetime of experience that eventually finds himself not again at the mercy of one with but a mere arqument! You young grump you! lol Ah… Dave, actually spirituality has much to say about quantum physics, if we have them ears simple ole Jesus said was necessary for one heart’s to hear what can’t be heard, yet is being openly communicated! Gosh, just imagine a man with your obviously gifted intellect gettin a hold of them there ears poor misinformed Jesus spoke about. Again, I like your site Dude, lots of interesting thoughts in much of your work…hey and even”some” truth. lol
Watched the “newest” PBS offering by Wayne Dyer about the “Dao.” Laughed all the way through it as it was so opposite of what he was trying to teach. He “gave up” his townhouse (to supposedly get rid of things and books he no longer needed) yet lives in Hawaii and swims with the whales…..
Then he tells a parable about taking a T-shirt his son likes away from him, supposedly to teach the son that things aren’t important??? What a crock.
His whole new premise negates his “intention gets you what you want” drivel completely. Guess PBS was scheduled and he had to write something up quickly. (The J.K.Rowling syndrome of promising 7 books but only having talent for 2.)
Running around in bare feet doesn’t a dao master make. When we see him with a bowl and a bell….maybe. (He can leave me his house in Hawaii, happy to take it off his hands, tax-free.)
Bowls and bells are Buddhist.
If you ever actually saw a Taoist master, you would not know it.
re: post from chancery stone. in his blog, he comments about Americans: “They’ve been rolling with snakes and speaking in tongues, finding stone tablets in the hillsides and offering polygamous marriage as a way to get closer to God for many years now. Even to this day they set themselves up in desert camps and hoard guns as acts of ‘righteousness’ then commit suicide in mass pacts that make people in tinfoil hats worshipping His Holiness, The Hobgoblin of Wellington Boots, look sane.
We Brits just don’t do it”
As an American, I find it quite odd that Brits choose to worship at the shrine of Her Highness, who is the the Queen of The Hobgoblin Hats. A woman of such frigid mein that she could be used as a deep freezer if only she had a door on her front. Plus, one of the richest women in the world, a billionaire, who, until quite recently, lived 100% tax-free, supported by the the compulsory taxes of Brits like Chancery. And not her alone, but the entire useless royal family, living on the dole of people who actually do work for a living.
If they were living on my dogs back, I’d call them parasites and take him in for a flea dip. Instead, the Brits go quite mad when Her Hideousness shows up with a sissors to snip a ribbon at a garden show. This maddness manifests itself chiefy by: compulsory bouquet giving which must be presented by virginal girl children under the age of 10; dipping and curstying like Mad Hatters; and, an overwhelming interest in the most minute details of the royal life. Including an obsession with their breeding habits that make a 12-step program for sex addiction look like a kindergarden party. Who can forget Prince Tamponito?
But to get back to the garden shows. Wielding a sissors with such precision a few dozen times a year is so exausting, that, August through October, she must retire to Balmoral, her 55,000 acre country cottage where she exists with only 200 servants in attendance. Worn out by her toils, the by now anemic Queen is restored to health by daily infusions of freshly slaughtered stag blood. Why, it’s like a fairy tale!
Give me a Wayne Dryer any day.
Wayne uses them all, Sai Baba, Tsu, Confucius, Buddha, Jesus….tells everyone they can get what they want (The Secret) if they “intend” it, be sure and torment you children, while you are at it, teach them cruelty for having their “selfish desires,”and now he wants hos followers to give it all up. “Die while you’re alive.” You don’t need all that stuff in your homes/offices. It “weighs you down.”
Bet that’s interesting for his book sales. People really don’t need to buy his books and tapes now….he doesn’t need their money any more.
He’s complete. (Wonder what Hay House thinks of that??)
Wayne Dyer is nothing more than the Dr. Phil of the soft-headed, educated, NPR PBS left. What is so surpising is to see all those ‘smart’ people so gullibly suck it in and in a way reminiscent of people considerabley less educated and more routinely reviled. And to see the camera pan across those smug, melifluous, knowing smiles and agreeing nods that silently say, “I’m here for the secret of life, and he’ll give it to me.” Dyer is such an obvious fraud he’s laughable. What does that say about his audience? I’m really quite shocked at this sort of thing on PBS. They are, indeed, a cult after all.
I am especially amused when Dyer goes on a venting rant. They are short but interesting. Like when he gripes about doing yard work or fix it jobs around the house. “I don’t do screen doots,” he once quipped after a rant on being distracted while in the act of inspired cdreation. Ugh …
A Taoist with a website store selling books and giving lectures on TV is sort of like a Poor Clare nun driving a new Rolls-Royce. They just don’t get it.
Wayne’s just a bald Sylvia Brown….and about as useful.
If it crawls under your skin so bad, why do you watch it? Why not find some quaint little show laden with sarcasm or pessimism? I haven’t watched the whole thing myself, but Dr. D. did say one of the most intelligent things that I’ve heard lately. In fact, he had the whole audience repeat it with him. It went something like this…”I don’t know”. Practice it. I promise it will sharpen your intellect (be you a scientist or theologian).
I’m confident not anyone of us “sperts” qualifies to actually come to any real conclusion concerning Wayne’s motivation to do what he does. Heck , it could be his spirit truly embraces that which he speaks, and thus sincerely believes he is “helping” folk, you know… make them ok cause he’s ok? I’m kinda thinkin he really does, shoot…I’ll give the guy the benefit of my doubts. And hey if that’s true- you gotta give him credit for gettin out there and in bed [ no pun intended] with they with the ability to get his message out! One thing I do know- his “intention” of being “heard” certainly has come to pass. We are his proof, we been talkin about what we “heard” from him for a few days now! Yikes!!! Wow, maybe it is true?
perhaps prayer can work, even if it’s not God’s will. the Israelites asked for a king and God gave them one, even though it was not His perfect will. they were asking for a king because they had rejected God as their King. Maybe we should be careful what we ask for.{reference-the book of Samuel}
I can’t figure out why Dr. Dyer’s philosopies seem to be so awe inspiring to so many folks. Man has spent thousands, perhaps millions, of years looking within himself for the meaning of life through Eastern philosophies and mysiticism. In fact the greater part of our planet’s population follows these belief systems.Yet to date he is still looking!
If these philosophies really worked wouldn’t we be experiencing Dr Dyer’s idea of solving conflicts with love worldwide by now???? Dr Dyer seems to be cashing in on old philosohies with new hand movements.
oops sorry for the typos
Hello all
What is all the fuss about? There were two books published some years ago. “The power of positive thinking” and “Think and grow rich”. Dr Dyer has taken those concepts and dressed them up by using sayings from ancient philosiphers and religion. Put it all into a new package, TV, DVD,s etc. and has made a success of it. What is so mysterious about that?
What is he saying. “This is how I have made a success of my life, and you can do the same”.
Why is it that some people see some one who is successful, and immediatley jump to the conclusion that they must be cheating?
Some doubt the power of thought. Look around you.
Everything that we humans do, begins with a thought, including you. Without thought nothing would get done.
Have you never been in a room full of people, when a person walks into the room and the whole atmosphere changes. Some times positivly and some times not.
Look back on your own life and see how the experiences you have had, have influenced your life. Your family, schooling, work mates,etc. The experience affects you only by what you take from it. What you accept or reject. There are three ways you can go. Take a positive attitude a negative attitude or neutral. The event it self do’s not do anything. Only you really know who you are, to every one else you are a figment of their imagination. The same go’s for your opinion of others.
Lawrence.
Here’s what all the fuss is about:
Remember all the Christian televangelists who, in the name of Jesus (who would not accept a rich man as his disciple because he only wanted to give away HALF of his money and who said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into Heaven.”) then preached the ‘Gospel of Prosperity’, telling people that if they obeyed God he would make them rich in return? Basically, they turned the entire message of Jesus upside down for their own personal gain.
The same applies to charlatans who twist and manipulate the teachings of others in order to convey their own message for their own personal gain. It is simple deception and it is dishonest. It is also very offensive to those who have taken to heart those genuine teachings that are now being manipulated.
aka Dr. Wayne Liar and the Power of Invention
hello…last I checked, this is America…if someone picks up a book, looks through it and decides, “Gee, this is a good book and I have the money to buy it…I think I’ll buy it.”, they can…this is not Dr. Dyer manipulating people out of money…it’s called free will, which is something he promotes…
…as some people freely believe that we come from monkeys and apes, there is simply no scientific proof to this “theory”, it is merely bad guesswork by “smart people”…I reiterate guesswork…
Also, it is fair to say that some people will never believe that being kind to others will in turn POSSIBLY cause others to be kind to you…or that when you give, people may POSSIBLY feel inclined to give to you…
…it happens…it just so happens that the more often you are kind and giving, the more often it happens…I don’t need a giant list of “smart people” to “prove this” and publish thier “findings” in a book and call it “science” to believe it…but I guess some people always will…
I must say that I throughly enjoyed reading each of the comments here, respectively. I, too, stumbled upon the recent PBS special with Dr. Dyer, during an insomnia bout, and managed to watch the entire show. It is amazing to me, how these people get on television, command these exhorbitant fees from a room full of hungry souls “seeking” something, anything that will help them with whatever they’re experiencing. I wish that I had that talent, I’d certainly be very rich.
The shrewd listener, keeping an “open mind”, as has been suggested by many on this page, will clearly hear many philosophies cloaked within what Dr. Dyer states is his interpretation of the Dao. I was entertained by the show, and truly howled when Dr. Dyer stated that he had divested himself of all his worldly goods-with the exception of the Maui estate, etc. I do not need anyone telling me to divest of anything in the name of anything, to “free” myself.Yes, I agree with some of the posters here, I will certainly accept any of the antiques and the Maui property for free, should the good doctor need to divest of any more “incumberances”. Yes, keep sending your $300+ dollars in folks!
hello…
let’s see…according to Dr. Dyer, if we do things we enjoy to do, we will be happier…
…makes sense to me…
…if we get rid of things that we don’t like, we will be happier…
…again…makes sense to me…
…a loving God wants us to prosper and share…
…o.k…so far, so good…
kindness=good…anger=bad…
…I think he’s onto something here…
I think people get angry at him because he charges people Money for his books, etc.
Here’s what I think…there are many different ways to make money…selling drugs, guns, and porn…
OR…
You can write down some ideas that people will benefit from…you can talk about things that people will benefit from…and you can invest your money in things that will make this money grow…
So, don’t be pissed because he’s rich…he earned it by helping others, in an honest way…that is his gift…he forces nobody to buy stuff…people seem to have a demand for his ideas…probably because his ideas work…
…people usually don’t reach enlightenment by putting others down…
Hello again.
I find it interesting that we all interperate Dr Dyer’s lectures and writings in differant ways. Also the postings. Isn’t that what Dr Dyer is doing with his quotes from the various religions and philosiphers.
From my own experiace I can tell you that his teachings do work. I began trying to pattern my life in the same manner fifty years ago, when Dr Dyer was still a teenager. I stress “trying”. My insperations at that time were the two books I mentioned in an earlier posting. “The Power of Positive Thinking” and “Think and grow Rich” I also read “A Magnificent Obsession” A work of fiction but a good idea of how to live a life.
He says he has given up material things. Has got rid of unnesersary clutter in his life. We all have our own idea as to what that is. He is certainly no Mother Terasa, although he uses her as an example from time to time.
He lives on Maui. Last time I heard, prime water front realestate was one million dollars a front foot. It is probably a lot more now. If he is living in a very remote area, in a tent, which I doubt, he is paying lots of bucks to be there. Still I do not believe he has cheated anyone or given anyone false hopes. As some one else said none of us have to read his books or watch him on TV, and if we do we are free to make up our own minds as to what we take from him.
Wayne Dyer is the Guru!
here goes…
if you want to learn about Jesus, read the Bible.
if you want to learn about Dr. Dyer, read some Dr. Dyer books.
Wayne seems to know how to be happy on earth, and Jesus knows and tells us not to be wrapped up in earthly things, as we are not of this earth, but we are just in this earth…for a while.
BUT WAIT!!!
Science hasn’t “proven” Jesus’ teachings! Whatever are we to do!? It’s called faith. Which basically means we don’t need proof from men.
I have seen and experienced miracles.
I don’t know how miracles work, but I don’t think I have to.
Meanwhile, major university studies across the nation are trying to find out big important things like, “Do women really talk more than men?”, and “Do sharks have thier own langauge?”
How’s that cure for cancer coming along, fellas?
I guess my point is that I am very skeptical of scientists who waste grant money on useless crap, then have balls enough to says things like, “You can’t prove the benefits of positive thinking! It’s just not scientifically sound! We need tangible results!”
I would trust Jesus over a scientist any day.
And if Dr. Dyer gets his proof by personal experience and not science, that’s good enough for me.
ummm…
not written about for over 150 years??? Obviously, you have not been to a bookstore in say, 150 years.
Basically unknown historical figure??? Let’s see, 2000 yrs. later, we’re still taking about Him.
Largely created??? I think you mean He created largely.
And “the failure of science to prove something in no way is a comment on faith.”
FINALLY-something we agree on. Didn’t you read the part where I said I don’t NEED SCIENCE TO BE MY PROOF?
Science has indeed effected my life because God has given humans gifts of intelligence(some) and has shown these people the way to a cure. To say it is science and man alone is foolish.
By the way, I think women do talk more than men, but I’m glad the local Journal here in town published those results(slow news day) because now I know for sure.
Scientists make me cry:)
hello…
…I think the reason you can’t find writings on Jesus shortly after He died was because the Pharisees, kings and whatnot would persecute anyone who claimed to be a follower of Jesus…
…anyone caught or accused of being a christian would be put to death or locked up, and writings were confiscated and destroyed…
…History Channel, y’know…
…that’s HISTORY channel…history, as in things that really happened…
So, you don’t think that science has had more of an impact on the quality of your life than a character of the past of who never left any writings and was not even written about for over 150 years after his death? Basically, an unknown historical figure that was largely “created” in many ways by 2nd century Christians.
So, the advances in understanding bacteria and viruses and the near elimination of plague, yellow fever, malaria, and typhoid in the developed nations has less of a positive impact in your life than the writings of superstitious and oppressive men during superstitious and oppressive times? That’s like saying “Hansel and Gretel” is more important to my well being than medical science.
The failure of science to prove something in no way is a comment on faith. Any failing on science’s part does not mean faith is right about anything. “Faith” is another word for abdication of reason. Religious faith had almost everything wrong. It took science to answer most of the questions that faith never could–and didn’t even come close to.
Faith has a bad track record. I have no faith in it.
Religion and spirituality are two different things entirely. Religion, I believe, is dogma. Man-made rules. Spirituality is building a relationship with God. Seeking out God’s rules, which are more or less “Love your neighbor as yourself”, and “Forgiveness.”
When did God say the world was flat?
Perhaps you are right not to have faith in religions, but religion is not God. God is love.
The body of Christ is not a building. It is all His followers acting toghether for a higher purpose. Service to others.
Of course, there will always be wolves in sheeps clothing, but they are not always scientists, philosophers, or priests. They are simply pretenders.
And while we can’t judge others as being good or bad, we can make a judgment call as to what we choose to fill our heads with. We can judge the difference between right and wrong, but we shouldn’t judge people. Not our job.
We can limit Dr. Dyer, but Dyer chooses not to be limited by our thoughts, only his own.
God cannot be limited by anyone. Miracles happen when God decides to suspend the laws of science and human reason momentarily for His will, not human intention. If a human was aligned with God’s intention, and was in agreement with God, then a miracle may occour.
But this is not a human performing a miracle, it is God using the human as a vessel.
It has been said that if you asked a scientist a hundred yrs. ago if he believed in God he would say,”Of course not, I’m a scientist.”
But if you asked a modern day scientist if he believed in God he would say,”Of course I do, I’m a scientist.”
This is because people have come to realize that God and science go hand in hand. Science isn’t all man-made jibberish, it is seeking out and understanding God’s mysteries of the earth(which was discovered to be round only by exploring with an open mind and a little faith).
I have seen Dr Dyer on PBS and I think of him as a teacher. Like all of us he is trying to make sense out of this experience of “life”. He writes about his journey, his observations, his discoveries, and as a teacher, he shares what he has learned. Unlike some teachers he doesn’t say you will go to hell if you don’t believe him. While he does offer answers he is not dogmatic. He offers perpectives that aren’t new but aren’t often taught in our society. He is inclusive with his ideas and beliefs. His books sell because there are a lot people searching for something better than what they were taught. Some embrace his ideas, some walk away.
It’s great to have faith and believe, but a religion is called a “belief” and a “faith” for a reason: that is precisely what it is. No matter how convinced you are, it is still a “belief”. If the bible answers all your questions… well then good for you. It doesn’t answer all of my questions. Here is just one as an example: With God’s infinite imagination and divine love how did he come up with the solution of “redeeming” mankind with the crucifixion and death of his son? That’s the best and most loving idea he could come up with? What an insult to a loving God. Some of Dr Dyer’s ideas strike me as silly and even weird but they are all better than that one. That’s not God’s thinking, that’s the thinking of men. Primitive, barbaric men. The bible is full of this kind of “man-thinking”. I believe in a better God than the bible god and I suspect Dr Dyer does too.
One can take from the Tao Te Ching and use it in ways for which it may not have been intended (e.g., to sell books, to make one sound wise). For example, Dyer is violating several instructions of Lao Tzu such as
“Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know.” (From Chapter 57 of the Tao Te Ching)
“If you want to possess something, you must first give it away.”(From Chapter 36)
The problem is that I can also find others that may support what he is doing.
The lesson here is to be careful when you start to believe without careful scrutiny. To quote W. K. Clifford
“The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them, for then it must sink back into savagery… It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbors ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat.”
The last comment by Gary is my favorite so far.
Kermit the Frog has some pretty good philosophy, too.
You all think too much, talk too much. You don’t have to believe DWD a prophet or a scientist, only a teacher. Believe or not, some or all, but if a person is quiet, and strive to connect, it makes sense at a level that defies explanation.
A dash of Lao, a sprinkle of Siddhartha, a touch of Jesus, a pinch of Krishna.
Jack of all trades…master of none.
“Time’s fun when you’re having flies.”
-Kermit the Frog
To JohnQPublic: If you’re comparing the language of sharks and the # of words spoken by women vs. men with the elimanation of plauge, malaria, etc., then maybe you should put down the Hansel and Gretel books. And the books about Jesus may not be in the fairy tale section. Probably a reason for that.
Start with the Kermit philosophy and work your way up.
It amazes me that Wayne Dyer can boast of “leaving it ALL” including his shoes. To go to MAUI?? Oh please! Don’t you need $$$ to live in MAUI?? Wayne, get real…you left what you WANTED to leave!
To JohnQPublic: Didn’t mean to sound harsh(well, o.k. maybe a little). It’s just that in response to Jayson’s claim to have personally expirienced miracles firsthand, thereby recieving all the proof he needs of a God that others choose not to believe in, and then being frustrated at university studies that waste $$ on things like girls vs. boys—you suddenly went on to say(not quoting verbatum…to lazy)”So, you don’t think science curing malria had an impact on your life?”
huh?
All i’m saying is that if someone sees something with thier own eyes that is considered a miracle, you probably will not be able to convince him that reason is superior to faith.
Hansel and Gretel taught me not to take candy from strangers. That’s pretty good advice.
That could be a good metaphor. Is Dyer the “stranger” and is his message the “candy?”
hmmm…
Not sure what you mean, HA. My only point is that faith, which is so often substantiated by the bible, is largely built on unverifiable claims. And not just biblical claims. Claims that we have immortal souls; claims that the universe (actually, a pantheistic view) conspires to help us out through tricky subtle messages; etc. Those who buy into these claims are abandoning their highest quality: reason. Ironically, there really is no escaping the human desire to reason. Even those who make these claims under the guise of “faith” attempt to reason them, too. Dr. Dyer spends years reasoning out his beliefs–he even gives use reasons why reason is not the best arbitrator of truth in his opinion. So, even he does not escape the reasoning process. Humans are built to reason and it is our greatest defense mechanism. Without it, all claims can be considered truthful. Research has shown time and again that those who rely on instinct, gut-feeling, and intuition can be more easily conned than those who reason. In fact, cons always avoid the rational person.
However, my “Hansel and Gretel” remark was to draw a comparison to the bible. After all, if we don’t need reason to ascertain truth, as the faithful claim, then isn’t “Hansel and Gretel” equally truthful by that criteria? If my basis for truth is that I simply believe it (“I’ll See It When I Believe It!”), then what makes one story more worthy than another?
Fact: The bible was heavily edited by emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea 300 years after Jesus died, hardly a first hand account, for the political purpose of consolidating his followers. The bible is a collection of books with no first hand accounts–e.g. gospels were written almost 200 years after Christ–from the minds of very superstitious men.
I think JMB, in an earlier post here, was on to something. Those like Dyer who acquire their “abundance” by talking as if they know the big answers should be viewed with suspicion. If Dyer truly lives by the Tao Te Ching, then why must he go on television to talk about it when by doing so if violating one of its tenets? That’s because he wants to proclaim truth to others and not really seek it. His claim, like so many others, is he has found “the truth” (albeit from many different sources) and to follow him “in spirit.” His message is: abandon your reasoning (when it comes to him), abandon your doubts (when it comes to him), and give in to his beliefs because his intentions are pure. It as been a long-held philosophical point that pure in intention does not mean pure in action.
Thank you Gary. I happen to agree with your last comment as well, about how chance being introduced as a structural element of existence shows us that anything is possible.
That is truth. I would definitely watch your PBS program should you ever get one.
And to HA: When an alligator opens his mouth really wide, his eyes will close.
You see, HA…the frog philosophy ain’t that bad.
This should be of interest to anyone inquiring about Dr. Dyer. This is taken from:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/glenkcet.html
From: Glen Meloy
To: The President’s Office at KCET
Subject: Dr. Wayne Dyer and Sai Baba
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:30:25 -0700
The President’s Office at KCET
Dear KCET,
I was shocked to learn today in the Email below that Wayne Dyer actively promotes and speaks of Sai Baba in his books and lectures.
If I had known that at the time of your fund-raising over a year ago, I certainly would not have purchased the Wayne Dyer “whole enchilada” as it was then being promoted.
For your information, Sai Baba is the leader of one of the largest mind-controlling cults in the world and is a total fraud and sexual deviate who molest boys and young men and who claims to be the God of Gods. His organization in the United States has been and still is covering up these activities since 1980.
Don’t just take my word for it. Check out the material found on http://exbaba.nl.
The listeners and viewers of KCET and all PBS stations that allowed Wayne Dyer to participate in their fund-raising programs and the unsuspecting followers of Wayne Dyer deserve to know the truth about this fraud avatar who masquerades in a cloak of goodness, while in reality, is sexually molesting his victims in his private interview rooms in India .
I expect to hear from you and will want to know what you plan to do to rectify and help expose this horrible deception fostered on your listeners and viewers.
The background of celebrity Guests for fund-raising efforts should be more carefully checked out in the future to prevent this most unfortunate situation. If your staff would have done a google search on Dyer, it would have learned he was endorsing and promoting a world-wide sex molester by the name of, Sai Baba.
Glen Meloy
I bet I know how Dyer ended up promoting this fraud, Sai Baba: because he relied on faith and didn’t ask the critical questions that would have exposed him.
To JohnQPublic: Forgive the misunderstanding. I did take it to mean you thought faith was flawed because it hasn’t been proven by reason. Your last comment cleared that up nicely.
BUT…
See, here’s the thing…the criteria of faith is that we don’t need criteria for it to work. It works because we know it will.
As you can see, there is no reason to it. That is why it is hard to understand.
AND TO FROG:
ummm…
Where do I start. Well, I actually can’t say I disagree with you. And I like metaphors. Soooooo…I guess you take the chips on this one.
I find an interesting irony here. Some argue against faith or religion because it does not stand the test of reason and/or is based on the flawed reasoning that results from a belief in the supernatural. Quantum theory, though, especially with the introduction of chance as a structural element of existence has, if anything, demonstrated that nothing is beyond the realm of possibility…even God. Wouldn’t you say a lot of ‘faith’ is required to accept some of the results of contemporary quantum theory, e.g. quantum foam, wormholes, vacuum energy, string theory, hyperspace, supergravity, multiple dimensions, etc., etc. Comparing what we know today to what we knew five hundred years ago, it would seem prudent to consider what we won’t know until another five hundred years.
“The more you know, the less you understand.”
Lao tzu
I think you jumped on that one, froggy.
Pluck your magic twanger.
There’s a misunderstanding: because faith does not stand up to reason does not mean it is flawed. That is not my point. It’s that faith is speculation and therefore has no criteria to be measured. So, it’s not that it is flawed it is: why believe one speculative view over another when they’re all just taken on faith? The Christian belief is no more valid or invalid than the beliefs of the Wadarni tribe of South America. Thus, no more valid than any fairytale.
Ah, yes. The box. What does it mean?
Well, we know this much—the box is definitley there. This we know is true. So the truth, so far, is that there is a box.
We also know that if we choose to ignore the box, which is our free will, the box will still be there.
We also know that when we reached out to this box, it left us. So that right there tells me that I should not go to that box if I need something. I should not go to that box if I want to put something into it. It will leave me if I try.
So, therefore—JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS TRUE DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR FAITH IN IT.
Is the box true because other people saw it? Doesn’t matter. If thier backs were turned and they missed the box, would that make it less true? Doesn’t matter. I saw it.
But being true and being good for me are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
It was just another box. Even though is was what it was. So it sounds like we agree on this particular box. What we deduced as truth we did without trying to convince anyone else. And we also didn’t listen to anyone else.
A good box is one you can put things in and take things out of. It won’t leave you when you need it.
Faith in this box would have been misplaced, even though the box was truely there. And whose yardstick did we need to determine that?
Where the hell am I going with all this?
Instead of ignoring the box altogether, it would be better to make a judgement on wheather or not this box is good for me or bad for me. Don’t make a judgement on wheather the box is truely there. Then walk away, with or without the truth. Even if Wayne Dyer is still trying to figure it out.
ribbit.
Well put, HA. Your “don’t need criteria for it to work” is well stated, in my opinion. But having faith is not lost on me. I do get it. But when I ask myself have I put my faith into something truthful, I am immediately confronted with the need for a working definition for “truthful.” It is hard to escape the notion that truth is something that stands up against critique. Therefore, truth is objective. If it were subjective and changed from individual to individual, then the word “truth” becomes meaningless and every idea is equally valid. No idea is false if there is no critique. So, while I don’t need criteria to make it work, I do need some yardstick to determine if I’m being told lies or not. Reason is all we have.
To me if I am going to accept a body of thought especially put forth by someone claiming to have the answers, then I want to make sure that it is correct. My simply believing it is not enough. The world simply could not work that way. The worth of every doctor, dentist, lawyer, and any other professional is determined by the recommendations of others. No one in their right mind is going to choose a doctor simply because that doctor believe in himself. When you choose a doctor you want references; the opinions of others about the doctor are more important than his opinion of himself. Therefore, through the testimony of others I can discern some truth about the doctor. If your faith is misplaced into a falsehood, what is the worth of your faith?
My personal view about faith can be best described with a metaphor about life represented as a party with a magical box.
Here you have a party with people laughing, conversing, drinking, and generally enjoying themselves. But there is this mysterious box in the middle of the room. When anyone approaches the box it vanishes. It is perpetually elusive. But when you don’t attempt to grab it, it reappears. After a few attempts at snatching at the box, most people give up and resume having fun. However, there are some that start to speculate about the box. After a while they come to believe they know what the box means and its significance to everyone at the party. However, each one speculating comes up with a different answer, but all are convinced they’re right. They’re speculation is truth (and religion doest claim objective, not subjective, truth) and if everyone at the party does not buy into their newly created truth there’s a price to pay.
Soon they focus their entire time on the box. The box becomes their party. They’re so sure that they’re right that they spend the rest of the party trying to convince everyone else that they solved the mystery. They are now missing the party because the box has consumed them. Their sole purpose is now wrapped in their own speculative thoughts about the box. Moral of the story: you at a party, enjoy the party and forget about the box. You can’t understand it and when you try you’re just making things up.
Whatever spiritual elements there are to this world, I will either find out or never know. But I will never figure it out by speculating and I would rather enjoy the “party” rather than obsessing about whether I have a spirit or not.
To bring to topic back to Dyer, he basically claims that leading a spiritual life improves your survivability in life. He says that by connecting with the “source” that you find “abundance” (i.e., you get what you need to aid your survival) as well as peace of mind. (Peace of mind comes when you quit focusing on survival.) I disagree. I have never witnessed anyone gaining peace of mind through spiritual living and certainly those who survive the best among us usually don’t get there by focusing on the spirit–unless they’re a scheming televangelist, which actually means they’re focusing on survival–money–and so are back to the former. In fact, people who focus on the spirit tend to have the most difficulty on the surviving front. I don’t see abundance following spirituality as Dyer claims.
If there is a purpose to our lives, it is not for us to know; it is certainly not for me to know otherwise I would just know. I much rather ignore the box and just enjoy the party.
So I asked the host of the party: “Just what the hell is in that box, anyway?”
He said “Hee hee…nothing at all.”
Suddenly, a cat jumped out of it.
Wasn’t Einstein the one that was smart enough to build an atomic bomb—but never could figure out that darned hairbrush.
“Taaa Daaa!”
Now I’m cracking up! Y’know, a disappearing litter box would be less embarrassing at parties.
But should we put our faith in the crap that’s in the box?
Hahahahaha!!!
Just in case anybody’s a little confused by my last comment, it was sort of a ‘quantum’ joke (think Schrodinger).
My point was: if anything is possible in the Universe, then anything at all could be in the party box so everybody is correct.
I still think Dyer’s full of beans, though.
Ha! LOL! Yes, Dyer does not have a firm grasp of the collapsing wave function, or any physics for that matter. His interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is that the observer creates (manifests) the outcome. But that was not what Heisenberg meant and that is not how Plank, Bohrs, et al interpreted it. The problem is that spin and velocity cannot be measured at the same time. They’re mutually exclusive. That’s all. Therefore, when measuring for a wave you will get wave results because of the way you have to disturb the subject, not because that is what you expect or think of or believe in. And you will get particle results when tested another way.
The Copenhagen interpretation, which has been the official one for over sixties years, says quantum effects are because the observer disturbs the subject matter in order to test it and some things such as light are so small that there is no way to test it without disturbing it in an extreme way.
It is not about the observer “manifesting” what he thinks or expects. Scientists have a field day with Dyer and Chopra’s quantum explanations.
Hmmm. Interesting. Fun. Here’s what I often think: scientists who are atheists are frightened control freaks who like to imagine that they know everything that there is to know AT THIS POINT IN TIME. And anything that they haven’t figured out – either isn’t (the worst sort of scientist) – or just hasn’t been figured out by SCIENCE yet. K. Have I riled anybody up yet? Not TRYING to, honest :).
The thing is, the truth is – there are many ways to do and experience what we understand to be the same thing. For example; owls, hawks, hummingbirds, a certain type of spider, airplanes etc. are all able to “fly” through the air (for miles). Yet, they all do it differently. (Especially that cute little spider who spins a long thread of web and catches a current.)
Isn’t a scientist turning science into some sort of dogmatic religion of his/her own when s/he asserts it’s THE answer, THE ONLY answer, etc.?
When, in fact, it is only one way of doing something?
I wish I had all of the answers. I don’t. However, I know for sure that science does not. And a belief and God, and a belief in spiritual principles, is NOT religion. From a human who often feels that she flies like that little spider with the long thread of web; I can attest that those beliefs are often developed over a long time of personal experience.
Last but not least – oh no!!!!!!! – although I am not a psychic (and I don’t play one on t.v.) – I have actually been psychic. And, fortunately or unfortunately, during different years of my life -quite frequently. (What would be the odds of me walking up to someone in the ocean at Bermuda {and feeling a bit crazy for doing it, but a gutt instinct told me too}, asking said person if she had found a camera case (with all of my credit cards etc in it) – and having her be the one who actually did find it – hours earlier, miles away?
The truth is, having felt overwhelmed, I wasn’t even going to ask anyone – but just felt this sense that I was supposed to ask her?
Now – where was my psychic ability when I lost my camera case (with all I.D., credit cards etc.)? Well, that is extremely easy to answer!! It was with Einstein’s HAIRBRUSH! 🙂 🙂
Sometimes, although I do not know this for a fact, I think that being open to things beside the little halls in your brain sometimes makes you forget the little halls in your brain – and you lose things. The more creative I am, the more psychic experiences I usually have – and the more difficult it is to remember whether it is tuesday or wednesday.
Now, when my life is all organized in little behavior and thinking boxes, I KNOW THE DATE, TIME, MINUTE… you get the point.
None of us know it all. When you destroy what you don’t know (the unknown) because you don’t know it – well, that just seems like close-minded, fearful… (please don’t be offended)… childishness.
Don’t be afraid of the dark. 🙂
OPEN UP.
Forget to brush your teeth – if it allows you to accept that there is great mystery. Don’t obsess over that magic box in the room – but do enjoy how it stretches you. It comes and goes and you can’t control it??? Oh, come on you (atheist, I have to destroy whatever I don’t know) scientists – have some fun knowing that there is more – SO MUCH MORE – to life than what we can quantify, qualify, score and statistically analyze.
Atheists, FREAK YOURSELVES OUT – become… AGNOSTIC!!!
I’m just trying to improve y’all quality of life.
PS I hated disecting a frog in middle school.
“If this is to see what a dead, leathered frog looks like when cut open – fine. But why not use a model? If I want to know anything about a LIVE frog – I will spend time with one. 🙂 Happily.
Now, really, everyone, HAVE A GOOD DAY & NIGHT; EMBRACE THE MYSTERY.
It will lead you to more joy.
PSSS??? (Where’s that camera, hairbrush? Run on comment?) I liked all those smiley faces in above comment. Right back at cha!
Oh, like I didn’t ramble enough already … but before I really head off for some night-night; a response to John Q. statement: “I have never witnessed anyone gaining peace of mind through spiritual living.”
Have you studied the life of Mother Teresa of Calcutta? Have you ever looked at a photograph of her eyes; or the joy on her face when she’s laughing? And in terms of abundance, she created an absolute orchard of abundance around her in terms of love, connections, etc. etc. etc.
As far as I’m aware of; she also passed in an incredably peaceful way as well (something I’ve witnessed a couple of times in my life with human beings who have lived very loving, spiritual-goal oriented lives).
Thanks for the chance to let it all out! 😉
Love, peace, and mystery…..
To all those scientists, I ask: have you not heard of Einstein? Are you aware of his beliefs? As far as my understanding goes, his understanding of the universe – and his open, exploring way of thinking and connecting dots – allowed him to make great scientific discoveries –
and lead him to the belief in God; an abosolute over-arching intelligent source.
I am aware of Einstein’s beliefs. I’m also aware of his science. I am also aware of Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac, Francis Crick, Thomas Edison, and a host of other brilliant scientists who had no use for religion. I also know famous scientists who believe in the paranormal and UFOs. Argument by famous scientist can prove just about anything you want. 😉
And I think you have it backwards! Einstein said that his love of truth and beauty in physics had its origins in religion, not that his physics led him to his very pantheistic relgion. However, if you can find religion in a Lorentz transform, I’d be very excited 🙂
Einstein is to Dyer as:
Ferrari is to skateboard.
I have learned something from Dr. Dyer. And I think that lesson is this: You will never become a Martial Arts Master when you take lessons from a yellow belt.
Seek out the masters and learn from them.
I don’t want to take one good line from this religion, and another from that religion, and so on—then decide I’m a big ball of light.
Don’t need money, don’t want fame. I want the friggin’ black belt!
“I KNOW THE TRUTH!!! I KNOW THE TRUTH!!! AND YOU CAN, TOO!!! JUST SEND THREE EASY PAYMENTS OF $29.95 TO…”
Here’s the real deal people, and I hope you get this: The real Master will just give you the free gift.
And to havAgr8Day:
Thank you for hating disecting. No, seriously. I agree. If you’re going to learn about life, don’t inspect the dead. And I happen to like frogs;)
I thought nez’s comment was hillarious too.
And so succinct!!!
I think the fruit of a good (for me, this includes spiritually good) life is experienced in the present – it shapes each moment and day and guides your decision making. If love (truth and honest sort of being essential to that) practiced until it is second nature – life istself seems to grow in entirely different ways. (Again, don’t have all the answers.)
I like Dyer personally – but I don’t think he is the big ball of light. I think he’s just one of the sign posts jumping up and down shouting “there’s a big ball of light people!” Hopefully, he puts some gasoline into engines so that people can head off in a better direction. Or not. I’m not the big ball of light judging it all :).
Mother Teresa said something to the effect of “I don’t judge, because during the time I am judgeing, I can’t be loving.” (Love as an action.)
Mystery. Beauty. It’s all around us. Many ways of enjoying it, growing with it – while we are alive.
AND, as someone who has a BELOVED brother-in-law who is an AMAZING SCIENTIST – I know that many scientists are indeed extremely creative, and very open. (NOTE: before marrying my sis and knowing me – he was an atheist 🙂 and his life was much duller.) Now, the curiosity and open-ness that he extends toward science he extends towards all of life.
I was only trying to NUDGE the scared/denying/controlling/atheist scientists who fit that profile into opening up a big. Just think it will make a better world. (Knowing full well there are scientists who range the gamut spiritually.)
The last thing about Dyer: he is helping PBS when he tries to do those fundraisers. Thus the price-tag. And… I like Public Broadcasting….
Now, headin off to find Nez for that lesson in succinctness…….. 🙂 🙂 🙂
To havAgr8Day: Regarding your comment to my “I have never witnessed anyone gaining peace of mind through spiritual living,” I mis-stated my point.
You’re right. Of course there are those who find comfort and peace through religion and spirituality. No question about it. (Although, I don’t think the warm cuddly external way in which you described it is actual peace of mind, but that’s debatable.)
What I should have said was that I find that most people who get on the spirituality track are looking for something else beyond this life. The very fact that they go searching means they’re discontented with the struggle of survival. Personally, I’m not discontent so I’m not searching for anything–I don’t need salvation or the promise of a better existence. I rather like this life and if I don’t have an immortal soul that’s fine with me. But that’s just me. I do not need to have everyone believe the same as me. (Funny, Dyer says the same but spends his whole adult life trying to get everyone one his belief system.)
So, that really was my point: The “search for purpose” is the language of the disconent.
BTW, that “Ferrari is to a skateboard” comment by nez is hilarious!
“All right! All you idiots fall out!!!”, yelled the drill sargeant to his soldiers. The squad quickly dispersed—except for one lone recruit.
The sarge stalked up to him, stopped, and raised one eyebrow.
The private spoke up, “There sure were a lot of ’em huh, sir?”
On other point to havAgr8Day: I think you’re projecting a personal image when you described scientists as control freaks. You are generalizing to the point that borders on stereotyping.
I work within the science community and have some published articles on science, so I have some first-hand knowledge. Scientists do not imagine they know everything. Absolutely not. What scientists abhor is speculation without predictability. If science uncovers a mystery , then Dyer, Chopra and others will claim, “that mystery indicates there’s a God.” That has been said throughout written history: if we don’t understand it, it must be supernatural. But faith is not a measurement of truth, it an acceptance of what anyone says without measuring its truth. Faith by definition says, “I will take what someone else tells me as truth without checking it.” Science is nothing more than a process. A process to weed out untruths. Faith has no place in such a process.
Sooo, that’s the enchilada…?
One taco to go, please.
havAgr8Day, you make some good points. But do you really think Dyer is non-judgmental? I know that is what he preaches, but doesn’t he judge everything conventional? (In just about every book he devotes a large section to explaining what is wrong with the world.) Doesn’t he judge things by labeling certain behaviors as “low energy” vs. “high energy?” Isn’t that just a disguised value judgment?
Here is some standard garden variety Dyer logic: “In my world everything is perfect. That is a powerful statement.” Then, “conventional wisdom is a big lie” [“Your Sacred Self: The Big Lie”].
Fact: Dyer does not really believe everything is perfect because by definition it means it cannot be improved. He covers this with little riddles such as, “Everything is perfect including your desire to improve it.” That is the same paradoxical reasoning as with, “This statement is a lie.” It’s double-talk. And he has decided that his purpose in life is improving just about everything about you. Everything from subtle statements you make that imply blame, to how your thinking process developed, to how you respond to certain circumstances, etc. Basically, Dyer really preaches that everything is wrong with you and you need a total makeover. Everything is wrong with you because society–especially American culture–has programmed you as such. And he is here to deprogram your conventional thinking patterns; to help you become a no-limits person. Why? Because you have so many limitations you didn’t realize it until he told you. Now you know how imperfect you are–but he’ll contradict himself with, “you’re already perfect”–you can set yourself on the path of not just self-actualization but enlightenment.
So, unless you live the way he describes–never feeling guilty or worried, never acting in conflict, allowing yourself to be pulled into activity rather than pushing into it, etc.–you are not enlightened.
Dyer constructs a framework such that if you don’t fit it you can’t be enlightened. So, regardless of what he claims in the end he is just as dogmatic as any religion.
And you have to ask yourself: How can someone with such a sloppy work trail be believed that he has found enlightenment by a unique syntheses of ideas?
By sloppy I mean:
– he wrote your Erroneous Zones in 2 weeks
– he wrote Wisdom of the Ages in 60 days
– he teams up with frauds like Chopra and Sai Baba because he doesn’t take the time to background check them
– he shows little understanding about physics and then uses his misunderstanding to make profound claims
He simply does not do his homework before he speaks. Someone who shows such a lack of mastery of ideas in my opinion cannot be enlightened.
Your reference to Chopra is interesting. I first heard of him when I read a novel he wrote about Armageddon. He made reference to Ash Wednesday as the Wednesday of Holy Week. It occurs, in fact, seven weeks before Holy Week at the beginning of Lent. Talk about good research! Only about a billion Christians knew that little fact. And he is a religious teacher? Ha!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…
I’m going to throw a few rocks in this pond and watch the standing wave pattern that develops.
Think about this:
If there is only one universe (or God) then it contains in itself everything that has existed, exists, or has the potential to exist. Nothing can be created in this universe without creating the complete opposite of it at the same time. We may not have the “instruments” (physical or mental) to detect the creation of the opposite, but it would have to be created in order to keep the balance.
If you create a positive energy a negative energy is created automatically. They have to add up to zero or nothingness. The universe itself is nothingness yet from it everything can be created as long as the complete opposite is also created.
If you want to create Good, you can, but Bad is also created at the same time. If you want Truth, you can have that too, but Untruth is created as well.
So all those who are looking for the Truth are searching only for half of the Whole. The “scientist” is observing only half of the universe and wants to explain the workings of the Whole universe. He can not. The religious is chasing after the Good and hopes to know God. He can not.
Everyone wants to polarize the universe or God. It does not have polarity, charge, mass, energy, etc. etc.. For God there is no Good or Bad. We have created those concepts out of the nothingness of the universe. We have polarized the universe in our minds and picked half of it to represent the Whole.
Rather then search for the Truth we should search for the Whole. We should become Wholly by understanding the Whole and not just one part of it.
It was not dark before “let there be light”. The concept of light and dark had not been manifested in the universe just yet. As soon as light was created, darkness was created as well. God did not create anything. God and Universe are the same thing. They are both nothing and everything at the same time. Light and darkness, time and timeless, etc..
…..at the end you will find NOTHING, but will you be wise enough to realize that you have found EVERYTHING…….
Did I disturb the pond with my thoughts?
Now I will just watch the standing wave pattern resonating the universe.
Zero, I don’t know why, but I didn’t FEEL what you were writin’.
Regarding Dyer; I am fairly uninformed regarding his writing. I wasn’t thrilled with YOUR ERRONEOUS ZONES (although, you have to admit, he did some good “manifesting” with that if he wrote it within two weeks and had the outcome he received!).
However, the PBS fundraising effort I watched of his was on INSPIRATION. I found it to be completely, and utterly similar to my own experience with creativity. Astoundingly so.
When I watched that talk (complete with his guests), I was SPELLBOUND. I actually doodled the title for an upcoming book without knowing it while I watched it (I don’t write self-help books btw).
Anyway, the truth he described about inspiration –
has definitely been experienced by me anyway, as profound, uplifting TRUTH in terms of my creative life – and my evolution as a person.
I’m not going around talking to people about what I’m experiencing though – too busy using all the energy to write/create more (oh, and blab on this it appears ;).
Anyway, I’m thinking that NEZ has all the answers. “Sooo, that’s the enchillada? One taco to go please.”
OMGosh, I think perhaps we should all follow NEZ as the great simplifier of all thought – a new cult perhaps??? 🙂 🙂 🙂
I guess one more thought – maybe I do want to respond to what zero wrote: perhaps we can pick what polarity we want to dwell and develop in most. A lovely writer (sorry, can’t remember her name and mutilate her lovely quote) wrote something like “When you’re searching for glad things, it’s hard to find anything else.”
Sort of like – where’s the love in this moment – there cannot also be apathy in this exact moment between us.
Nez????
Xox
sorry bout sooooooooo many typos. That’s sort of the way it is with me though 🙂
unless i force myself to proof – and that’s only for manuscripts. 🙂 🙂
He talked bout the 80-20 rule. I wonder if he’s given away 80% of the millions he’s made on all his other books and tapes? Randy
“Doctor” Dyer’s primary intent is to sell his books, tapes, etc., and to promote his daughter’s singing career.
PH’s explication of Dyer makes me think of the Aliens in “Invasion.” Basically collectivism and denigration to the point of endangerment of the physical: A mixture of Heaven’s Gate, 1984, and the Soviet Union. As objectivists have put it, you can’t talk to people (such as Dyer) who insist on putting their wishes and fantasies above reality. But the new age has a built in defense mechanism of irrationalism when asked, no matter how nicely, to account for itself.
As for those who insist Dyer’s seminars and other costly products “help,” I suppose lobotomies help some desperate individuals. Actually lobotomies are a short cut to “enlightenment” or “in Spirit(edness)” that I’ve often wondered why new agers don’t take.
At least fundamentalist religions have absolutes that force consistence.
I’m worried about where these gurus are taking society in teaching the desperate and confused to stop thinking and stop asserting themselves. The only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance they so manipulatively put out there is to kill your brain in some way. This is why in London workers are suing an American Co., in London, who sent it’s workers on some sort of new age retreat. This kind of forced cognitive dissonance actually caused workers mental break downs and detroyed personal relationships.
I liked your comments, Mr. J. Q. public. I remember thinking in one of his useless PBS plugs that according to his [il]logic, suicidal homeless people must be the most enlightened people on earth!! Then I realized he’s not a cute aging hippy parent but a bad sadistic parent-a mommie dearest dressed like Kurtz in “Apocalypse Now.” And then I realized, evil separatist individualist coporeal being that I am, I could actually turn the TV off and resist the brain washing.
wow “zero” that was pretentious.
Tell me, ZerO, if I sat around and did nothing, what would that create. I’m gonna say nothing.
BUT WAIT!!!
The opposite of “nothing” would seem to be “something.”
Just something to think about. Oops, I mean nothing to think about.
Okay, I’m in love with Nez.
And Frog – I like you too. I mean, sitting right in front of my desk is a book with a picture of Kermit on the cover that’s entitled IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN. AWWW.
It’s not ez being human.
And about those Europeans (really?) suing an American company for taking them on a retreat and exposing them to New Age thoughts that caused mental breakdowns etc. – I have to say, after I experienced enough psychic experiences (with real – still living witnesses 😉 ) – I tried to look into the subject – as if I’d find a simple answer. I didn’t. However, I remember finding a book about the government’s study of esp, and training regarding theta brain waves – etc. And one of the book’s points was that there was a high degree of mental breakdowns in people who experienced the training and results, without having some sort of construct for handling it ahead of time.
I’ve never tried to be New Age – whatever that is. My experiences almost always are linked to creativity or relaxation (driving, swimming, etc).
However, I think science and spirituality do actually blend and that the same principles at times can be applied to both. You can’t have a few psychic experiences and jump to the conclusion that you’re psychic.
It’s easier to accept reality – ‘sometimes I have psychic experiences; and this makes me think, or know as much as I know anything, that there is some sort of sixth sense, etc’ – then to deny the reality of it. However, like someone on a bicycle using training wheels – WAIT!!! I just had a NEZ moment:
Psychic experiences are too enlightenment
as training wheels are to motorcycles.
🙂 🙂 🙂
I’m so pleased with myself.
Again, I think everyone needs to try to stay open. Accept what real experiences they have. Assume we’re all imperfect. And that the only perfect thing is love – which it seems to me we all know when we feel it.
Alrighty, now I have to get back to other sorts of writing.
PS I love envisioning Frog taking care of his dog. 🙂
Oh, one last thing. This doesn’t have anything to do with Dyer. I stick by my feeling that from the little I’ve seen, it’s been positive.
However, in terms of the whole concept of “manifesting” – I think that is very short sighted. If you look at any great humanitarians, who manifested huge shifts in human consciousness – Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mendella etc. (I’m avoiding stating super religious figures) – they all suffered. For example, Martin Luther King bettered the lives for almost all of us; and died by a gunshot.
Spiritual living – is more about manifesting abundance on a human level (what is good and right for all people) – and getting rid of exploitation etc. – then it is about “manifesting” whatever you want.
HOWEVER (deep breath for all my run-ons) I generally think that individuals who try to help others re-shape their thinking and open their mind to new possibilities in their life are most often trying to help them.
I’ve seen people live in mud puddles for years when the entire, gorgeous world was right outside their door.
Good wishes for all. 🙂
Have to agree with Zero but unfortunately, that explanation doesn’t satisfy most people’s need to align themselves with a black or white reality. Look how easy it was for Bush to promote the “evil doer” label on the Muslims or “axis of evil.” It makes it so much easier if someone will do the thinking for us and label what’s good and bad in the world. “True Believer” is an excellent book on the subject of how people come to believe things as true.
Interesting that Dr. Dyer even quotes the Tao saying, “the Tao that can be spoken of is not the tao.” He didn’t mention it also goes on to say, “those who speak about the Tao, do not know it, those who know the Tao, do not speak about it.”
How could he afford to live a “spartan life” in Maui if not for his millions? Isn’t there something a little disingenuous about helping PBS with its fundraising efforts and then telling us to rid ourselves of our possessions? Maybe we should all send our shoes to PBS!
My thoughts on apathy are as follows:
When you create a truth, an untruth is created as well. hmmm… Those who are seeking truth are only searching for half of the whole. Hmmm.
I seek truth, but yet somehow I don’t seek lies. But did I create the desire for someone else to seek a lie? I’m guessing no.
I think we all know what an untruth is instinctively. Why would you seek out a lie? What is there to gain?
Well, ok, I guess it helps sometimes to know how not to do something.
Creating good is good, and when I give my dog a treat just for the hell of it, I don’t think I created another dog owner giving thier dog an ass-whoopin’ just for the hell of it.
When you create something(good or bad), you don’t always create the opposite. You just know how to. Weather you do or not is another action entirely.
To havAgr8Day:
I have one of those wiener dogs, and his name is Frank(get it?) if that helps your vision:)
I agree, we are not perfect, and we will all stand before Gods perfect law, do you think you will mesure up…..i don’t think so, that is unless you except His perfect gift. By the way, love is not a feeling, God is love, and He sent his son Jesus to pay for your sin with his blood, now thats love!!!! Budda and the like have some nice things to say about how to get along with each other in this life but i hope your not counting on them or Mr.Dyer’s all paths lead to heaven jargen to get you there! Chritianity is the most logical world view period!!!! For anything to exist there must be something eternal that has always been and always will be. God and “the universe” can not be the same thing! The universe is a created thing just like you if you would quit trying to be your owne god and submit to the one and only who loves you, life would make much more sense. Don’t take my word for it, God gave you free will and you can keep on trying your way for the rest of eternity.
I agree. God is not “the universe”. I don’t pray to “the universe”. And if the universe was ever destroyed, there would still be God. If the earth were to perish, I would perish, Frank would perish, Dyer would perish, nez would perish, but God would live on and on and on.
God is good. God is love.
Agreed.
Jim Henson was not a muppet.
Are we still in Kansas?
O. Now I’m tired.
I was awestruck at the beauty of Joe G’s comments.
WOW.
I love knowing that Frog’s dog is named Frank. 😉
And I still think Nez has A GIFT.
But now, I just have to second everything Joe G. said. (Even psychic or other sorts of experiences are better sifted through that sieve –
what I’ve already thought anyway.)
AND, John Q., I think I understand your concerns… your worried that Dyer’s words reach too far and could potentially hinder as opposed to help people? And perhaps that’s what drives you to be so anti-Dyer?
Oddly enough – and un-nervingly enough – my experiences back up a couple of what appear to be Dyer’s bizarre claims: I actually do believe our positive thoughts can help others (and vice-versa), we are all connected, and … that forcing things generally doesn’t work – not in the long run. But for the general framework of all of my thoughts – look loosely at (again) at Joe G. WOW. And I don’t think he had more than maybe two typos. WOW.
Also, for enjoyment of life – perhaps part of our great purpose – see Nez.
And whatever you do, make sure to walk a mile in another’s shoes – and don’t react, or over-react to your own fear – and burn somebody (anybody) at the stake.
Those are all random comments. From me. 🙂
(I don’t know if ya’ll feel it too – but seems to me there’s a lot of good stuff happening here.)
Dyer, like any teacher, puts the idea out there and what you get from it is very personal. I think he is trying to give direction to those who have no direction. What have I taken from him? Guilt and worry are useless, because you cannot change the past and you have no control over the future. We are all the same to God. Hand yourself over to God or the creator (whatever you want to call him) and you will find inner peace. I think it is sad that some feel the need to find as much negative as possible. So what if he’s been married and divorced. I know ministers of churches who have been divorced. His message is one of acceptance and equality. Kind of what I see in the bible. Did it ever occure to anyone that when Jesus said I am the way, he meant his way is the way, and we like Jesus are all children of God? We all come from the source of the creator, and we will return to that source, it’s called heaven in our small minds. It’s pure love, not a palace with gold and rubies. Get over yourselves, and remember when you point your finger at someone the rest of your fingers are pointing back at you!
In response to the “I think we all know what an untruth is instinctively” statement made by frog. While I understand what you’re getting at, that we often sense lies in what others tell us, untruth here is really a broader construct. You’re taking a narrow meaning of it. That is, we probably all agree that that objective states exist regardless of our opinions or expectations. (Sorry, but I need to go philosophical to explain myself.) Because without external objectivity, there are no axiomatic points of agreement among any one; everything is epistemological. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss because it all what you say it is a no one can be wrong. (That would make racists’ views equally valid, which they clearly are not.) Everything would be simply what you interpret it to be.
I do not believe that. I believe clearly that the universe operates in a consistent way on which our thoughts and opinions have no bearing. Therefore, there are “truths” that are independent to us. How the universe came about and its physical laws are things that have evolved without human opinion or influence.
With that premise our endeavor to understand our world then rests on finding those objective truths. Dyer is acting as a guide to understanding our earthly plight. But there are correct and incorrect explanations. These are the truths that are being discussed here, not if someone is lying or not. And the “sense” about them is usually wrong. There is no way our common sense tells us we are in the corner of this huge galaxy colliding with another galaxy (M31), spinning at an amazing 18,000 miles per minute around an axial point while swirling around a large nuclear fusion reactor. No, your senses tell you the world is flat, unmoving and that the stars revolve around you. You cannot sense objective truth. It must be examined to be uncovered.
Dyer is explaining how the universe works to us. His whole explanation of “the source” brushes on the details of how it works and what it is. For example, in his latest special he declares unequivocally, “there is no violence in the source.” Really? Is that objective truth? But there is so much evidence to the contrary. If one believes nature is a reflection of “the source,” or at least created by it (and he has stated so), then an astounding amount of violence is built into the instincts of its creatures. (He attempts to brush it off with cherry picked examples, and ignores examples that contradict him.) I’m not talking about the horrific things man does, but the general thread that we see throughout nature: creatures are built to react to strangers in violent ways. In fact, the variations of violence is staggering. On top of that, “the source” creates an endless parade of killer diseases and natural disasters. That seems odd for a “source” that knows no violence. There are very few examples of love and caring in nature. Most of “caring” in nature seems to occur with its own offspring, not with its neighbors. (And I’m not talking about ecological harmony, but the instinctual behaviors of living creatures.) It seems obvious, then, “the source” would have built the instincts to coddle and be gentle since that is how it is. Or so we’re told that is how it is.
My point is that he is making a putative claim of objective truth, for which scientific methods are squarely designed. He is saying, “I know the nature of the universe and I know that things manifest themselves from a spiritual world.” If that is true, then tell me why do scientific methods do not apply? Why should he not have to prove what he is claiming? Isn’t that the responsible thing to do?
Response to clsr: yes, he is putting out an idea to do as you will with it. But with that comes the responsibility of making sure you are right. Plus he goes far beyond just giving direction to others. With the way you have framed putting out an idea, then applying it to, say, college text books we could say, “oh, well. It may not be correct, but it comes from the heart and the author was very well intentioned.” When you jump up on the soapbox, you must be right.
I find the posts very thought provoking!
Here are my 2 cents. In the end, I feel we all believe what we each choose to and as a result we find the evidence to support our beliefs whether we take the scientific, religious, or new age point of view. When we find ourselves dissatisfied with our life experience in some way (or are driven by a desire to improve on it) then we are willing to take an open/critical look at our beliefs and in doing so we are willing to examine and listen to the beliefs of others whether they be Dr. Dyer, our favorite church preacher/pastor/minister, rabbi, guru, or any other person that publicly lectures on spiritual/life beliefs. In the end we take on our version of the truth from someone or something else “out there” since most of us are not born “knowing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” since the moment of our birth (hence we go to church, buy books, listen to speakers, etc. to get the truth we seek).
I respect Dr. Dyer and rather than take a stance that we either “have to†buy his entire philosophy or reject all of it: I personally find it more beneficial to consider what he (and what anyone else I choose to listen to) has to say carefully, submit it to my life experience and my heart for guidance and then keep what serves me and discard what does not. I like some of what Dr. Dyer says and find it useful and so I take it in. The rest goes in one ear and out the other and yes I have actually laughed at some of his comments (in disagreement) while being truly inspired and touched by many of “his†teachings (most of which I have heard from other sources way beforehand which he acknoledges in his quotes but I still appreciate the great reminders). I was just remembering Tony Robbins (in his very successful “Unlimited Power†tape series) years ago using the analogy of a computer needing to be “conditioned” by repeating the same procedure over and over until the computer “gets it”. Tony tried to make the point that we need to repeat to ourselves what we want to change in our life’s (his “point†being that if a computer needs repetition then imagine how much more we need it!). This was opposed to the view of NLP which implied/believed that we humans could be programmed like a computer and would never revert to old unwanted behaviors. As a computer programmer for 20 years, I found his computer analogy of “conditioning” laughable but still I can discern the difference between a computer and my personal life and I didn’t reject the point he was making because his lack of technical knowledge caused him to use a poor example for what is otherwise a valid point. Likewise, that our perspective on any experience is more responsible for the nature of our experience than what is happening to us “out there” is a valid point that we need to remind ourselves of constantly of because it is easy to forget (whether Dr. Dyers analogy of Quantum Physics proving that “when you change the way you look at things, what you look at changes†is technically correct or not). To a person who wishes to die, being shot at is an act of kindness. To a person that is ready to or even unafraid to die, being shot at is a forgivable act, to someone who really wants to live or is terrified of dying, being shot at is an act of murder, wrong, and an unforgivable act. The point being that we may not get to choose what “happens to us” in this life but we can choose what we want to make of anything that can potentially happen to us in this life beforehand and this will greatly determine our experience of it.
I agree with the some of the observations expressed in the posts by some Christian writers that we shouldn’t make Dr. Dyer into “the answer” or bet our soul’s destiny on EVERYTHING he has to say. I also believe we shouldn’t believe anyone just because they call themselves Christians and can quote Bible scriptures to drive a point that is both judgmental and unloving and who claim an exclusive domain over ALL TRUTH. I believe the highest and noblest use of the Bible is to spread a message of love, forgiveness and peace which are the essence of the spirit of Jesus Christ. I also believe Jesus Christ to be a much better role model and source of the truth than Dr. Dyer and I think Dr. Dyer would agree with this statement as well. If Jesus was speaking on public television then I would first and foremost tune in to what Jesus had to say and I suspect Dr. Dyer would too. In the meantime, until this option becomes available we all freely and willingly listen to mere mortals interpret and “teach us the truth†all the time, whether it be on PBS or Sunday service.
We are all on this journey of life together trying to figure it out as we go.
As I write this post I just realized that just like Dr. Dyer we all have a deep desire not only to “learn the truth” but by writing and posting our beliefs on this site we prove that we also (just like Dr. Dyer) have a deep need/desire to “teach our truth” as well, whatever that truth happens to be.
I wish you luck in your own pursuit and hope I have just as much luck in mine!
Joe
A list of Dyer claims that go beyond just advice and which cannot be substantiated (I can back all of these with specific references to his works if you like):
– that when people have sex and yell “oh God” it is because they are really attempting to get closer to God during the act. (Say what??? Yes, he really claims that in one of his books.)
– that “ah” is the sound that created this universe and therefore is why it exists in the word for God in all languages. (Actually, there are many Hindu gods that do not have the sound “ah” in them at all, but once again he did not do his homework)
– we are not separate entities
– clouds can be moved with the mind
– one can enter another’s dream (he says he and his wife have done this)
– the dream world is reality and our everyday life is not
– disease is mostly a function of negative thinking
– the universe helps those who as for help
– the universal source is all-loving and non-violent
– there is no authoritarian God as Christianity claims (I’m not religious, but my point is he can’t substantiate it and is just another of his silly speculations)
– you help others with nothing more than good thoughts
– we are all connected in the spiritual world
– when you sleep, it is your soul detaching from your body
– seratonin levels increase when a person is in a positive energy field witnessing a positive action to the same amount as medical anti-depressants
– that he knows the level of God’s love (this is in reference to his Shia story. While it is a good story, I do like it, his conclusion is another example of his tendency to overgeneralize. He states that those boys playing baseball, “rose to the level of God.” Has anyone seen God do what those little leaguers did? I’m more inclined to say the rose to a level above God, but since I do not know anything about God including its existence, I won’t say anything.)
– Worrying is not helpful. (I believe this to be overly generalized. While one should not over worry, it can be a positive motivator to action. Worrying can lead to more productive lives.)
– Guilt is not helpful. (Again, the same response I have to worrying.)
– All the world needs is love to function properly. (This is akin to young kids who believe the can “live of their love for one another” and wind up poor)
– Branches of trees don’t fight, why should the branches of mankind? (Why did he pick branches over, say, colony ants which instinctively war with one another? Or gorillas who have been witnessed in the wild to rape their females? He needs to explain what were more like branches than gorillas.)
– That forcing things causes what you want to escape your grasp like grabbing water. (How is using force to do something like water? Why did he pick water over, say, coal? When you apply force to coal you get a diamond.)
– The natural world evolves without force. (How does he know what is behind nature?)
– That the mysteries that science cannot yet answer are supernatural and science just won’t accept that fact
– That a picture of his grandson in the bath smiling ear to ear is what our soul looks like. (I’m not being literal here. What I’m saying is how does he know that his grandson throwing an tantrum is not what our soul looks like? Or when he is frustrated? He has a whole myriad of emotions to capture but the source and our souls are only made of happiness.)
– that our reality is is a manifestation of our thoughts
– that your inner child is closer to the source than, say, your outer adult
– that children are closer to God than adults (Since in Dyer’s world you do not need to back your claims, then I claim this is God punishing of adults through old age.)
– that the ego works against us and that enlightenment can only be found through spirit (basically, this is an argument that focusing on spiritual needs trumps focusing on survival needs. The irony is if I focus entirely on spiritural that is what I’ll become: dead.)
To joeG: I like your explanation. Well said.
Thanks JohnQPublic!
You also express your thoughts very well.
Re: Gary’s post: Are we in kansas anymore?
No… I’m thinkin’ we’re somewhere over the rainbow havin’ a love fest now :).
And I’m likin’ it!
If Nez, Frog (and Dog Frank), Joe G., and even John Q (who for some reason seems so thoughtful, but also wounded – by believing in Dyer too much? Not sure…), and even Dave Bacon 🙂 (for providing an accidental forum for this) all lived in the los angeles area – I’d invite y’all over for a barbecue (but no bacon Mr. Dr. Bacon – it would be strictly veggie – in honor of Froggie’s Frank {furter} :).
Night night. Sweet dreaming…
PS the invite would be extended to everyone, not just those I named above – in honor of peace, love and great conversation 😉
PSS I loved that Joe G. shared his typo truth.
See, still … WOW. 🙂 🙂 🙂
To JohnQPublic:
Thanks for the help. I do have a better understanding, now. I needed to grab my dictionary in order to see that(ha, ha), but I am now able to see the broader view.
And to JoeG:
Damn…Your post made me change some of my perspective for the better. I have learned something more about objectivity, and blah, blah, blah, blah—I can’t find the right words.
I think I’m trying to say thank you:)
To JoeG:
If that is your two cents, I’ll gladly take a dollars worth.
To frog:
Forgot to say, to name your wiener dog Frank was genius.
To havAgr8Day:
Thanks for your comments on my previous post. You made me laugh with your observation on the low number of typos and I’ll take the chance now to confess that I started writing directly on the space provided on this website but before I clicked on the “Post†button, I first copied everything to Word (like I am doing now) so I could run a spell check on it because I know otherwise I end up with way too many typos!
To frog:
I am glad that you found what I wrote helpful! You really made me laugh with the “blah, blah, blah, blah†part!!
To nez:
Thanks for your kind words. I started out intending to write just 2 cents worth but once I started writing, it just kept coming out so I guess I went over my allowance! (I have been known to do this…)
I really love this site because it showcases the dominant (and sometimes opposing) points of view in our country today and yet here we are, all of us (by far and for the most part) expressing our views in a very civilized and respectful way. Hopefully, this format can spread to other sites as well and rather than have conflict driven exchanges bent on personal attacks, opposing views can be presented in a way that enrich all of those who read it, just as reading all of your posts on this site has done for me.
THANK YOU.
I have to agree with the comments about the discourse here being civil. It is refreshing. And I certainly hope that my remarks that question religion or anything else are not taken as disrespect for the religious. And regarding my earlier compliment to joeG for a well stated rebuttal, that should not be confused for agreement as others have indicated here.
In response to havAgr8Day’s comment about what concerns me about Dyer: here it is in a nutshell. He sells Santa Claus in a bottle. What he does is akin to televangelists selling prayer cloths for $1,000. He takes what are basically a child’s wish and tells you it is real and is how the universe actually works. He makes things up and then writes them as facts. Federal consumer laws prevent us from making false advertising claims. I cannot create skin cream and then claim it cures skin cancer too unless I can prove it does so. Dyer claims disease can be overcome through correct thinking and positive field energies. But he doesn’t just claim it, he sells it for money. Deepak Chopra does the same with “quantum healing.” Therefore, I think this activity is as fraudulent as any other unproven claims for a product. I believe consumer laws should directly apply to these snake-oil salesmen. The fact that some, as in this discussion group, find useful information in it, is fine. I have no argument with these well-meaning folks anymore than I would have for a grandmother who was duped into buying fraudulent cancer-curing skin cream. But I do feel that people who buy into his nonsense are victims. They are being sold things they want to hear, not things that are proven to be effective.
So, my concern with Dyer is he is selling a fraudulent product through unproven claims. I do not have an argument with his victims, only sympathy.
To JohnQPublic:
My comments were not meant as a rebuttal as I was just expressing my personal views rather than addressing yours. I respect your views and my personal experience has led me to views that I know you would disagree with at this time so I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. Regarding the views you have presented, you made some good observations on some of Dr. Dyers points of view that you found objectionable that I wanted to comment on since as I mentioned before while I respect and appreciate Dr. Dyer for sharing his thoughts, I dont agree with EVERYTHING Dr. Dyer says. To keep the posts smaller, I will take one topic at a time and spread them out over the next few weeks.
EGO
When I look honestly at my life, I have realized how much trouble my EGO has gotten me into and how many mistakes I have made by acting only on its counsel and from its point of view so many times.
I also see that it has helped me many times and I have also come to realize that there is a reason for everything under the Sun and while I agree with Dr. Dyer that we really need to keep our ego on check since its concerns are usually only either material, exterior, or temporary, I also believe there is a reason why we have an ego to begin with and that instead of suppressing it, denying it, resisting it or fighting it, I believe that we are better of trying to understand when does having an Ego serve us and when does it not. I think making our Egos into the equivalent of Evil or something to be rejected altogether is fighting/resisting our own nature and results in an experience of self-defeat, guilt and condemnation. I say it is natural to have an ego since our egos are usually strongest during are earlier years and we all know why we call our second year of life, our “terrible twos†(me, I want, mine, give me, now…).
Someone I heard said that “our greatest faults are actually our greatest gifts – with the volume just too high†and I will never forget that. I think our Egos also fit this description. Our Egos help us experience what we come to experience in this life by ensuring that we are here long enough to experience it, by constantly reminding us to do all we can to “try†to protect ourselves. I include “try†in quotes because many times what it is attempting to protect us from is completely out of our control and often times it is not something we need to be protected from to begin with. With its concern for our safety in all major areas of this life (physical, emotional, financial, etc.), the Ego helps us develop much of the wisdom we call common sense (i.e. look both ways before crossing the street, be careful who you talk to, be careful who you do business with, etc.) which help us to experience this life. The thing with our ego is that it is not self-adjusting (like any other attribute of our lives) much like the volume during a movie that sometimes is too loud and sometimes it is too low so we have to keep an eye on it make sure our “protector†is not getting carried away and becoming paranoid, self-limiting, or self-defeating.
I believe that in addition to monitoring and adjusting the volume of our egos we also need to monitor and adjust the volume of that other side of us and that is our spiritual side. Our spirit’s needs are different than those of our Egos and its volume needs to be adjusted as well and more often than not I find that the volume of our egos are little too high and the volume of our spirit is too low). Rather than being closely aligned with the needs of our physical experience, our Spirit is concerned with the actual experience of life itself and our connection with the whole. Spirit is concerned with life in the big scheme of things (at a universal level and beyond the physical). I remember when Buddha went to the forest to become an ascetic and he denounced his Ego completely, not taking care of his body at all to the point of not eating for periods of time sometimes bordering on the verge of physical death. After several years of this, he realized that this “way†was extremist and while he previously embarked on this path as a way of denouncing the needs of the ego to focus on the needs of his spirit, he found that the best way was what he referred to as “the middle wayâ€. His analogy was that if you don’t tighten the string of a stringed instrument (like a fiddle) enough, then you get no sound. If you tighten it too much then it will break.
When both the needs of our spirit and the needs of our ego are being met then I believe we are in balance. Having said this, I see much of the work for me is to help my ego see things differently often times since many times my ego thought it was protecting me while it was actually mistaken in the past and it actually caused me unnecessary pain. So the work for me is to adjust the prescription lenses my ego sees life through so it can see clearly what it is looking at and also to adjust its volume so it is not too loud or too low and it can do for me what it was intended to do.
I don’t want to fight my ego, I don’t want to do completely without it in this life on planet Earth and I don’t want to be controlled by it either so the only sane option I see at this time is to work with it and also question it when I get a feeling I don’t want, to make sure it is not misleading me into an unnecessary painful/stressful experience like so many times in the past while also giving it the benefit of the doubt and checking things out in case it is right.
Again, these are my views I am sharing with you rather than a rebuttal of your views.
I want to thank those of you who have brought us back to ground (Kansas), i.e., our general subject: Wayne Dyer. Since we seem to have been getting somewhat personal here lately, let me share this with you. I have been a believer in the scientific method and its (verifiable) results since I was a child. I have also been a follower and student of Lao tzu for over forty years. I see no conflict between these approaches to understanding. For example, JohnQPublic mentioned how violent Nature is (and how Dyer glosses over this fact). In truth, though, Nature is decidedly brutal, perhaps, even, from a human perspective, downright cruel. Millions of creatures die or are eaten alive every day, babies and all. But this is confirmed not only by the Biological Sciences but by Lao tzu as well: “Nature is not kind. It treats all things indifferently.†– Tao Te Ching, Chapter 5.
I write and publish poetry, mostly about Nature (which to me includes Physics and Cosmology). I rely greatly on both the facts of science and the insights of the Taoists to guide me in this endeavor. They do not, in my mind, conflict at all. Neither do they conflict with my faith in God. If anything, as we see father and farther into the Universe and deeper and deeper into that of which it is constructed, Science has simply reconfirmed my belief that there is more than we, as humans, can perceive. How could an ant describe Mount Everest?
But faith is faith and fact is fact and Wayne Dyer has apparently gotten the two confused. The point is that Dyer has blasphemed both of these disciplines by misinterpreting and selectively misapplying them. He is either woefully unknowledgeable or an outright fraud. He can say anything he wants, but only a fool would try to use the Tao Te Ching to expound a different message than what is contained in it and if they understood what was in it, they would not endeavor to expound that message. As I said in my very first post here: If you ever actually saw a Taoist master, you would not even know it. If you could tell, of course, he wouldn’t be one. Dyer would probably say that he never claimed to be a Taoist. If so, then he should stop selectively interpreting Lao tzu (and Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Planck, for that matter).
I thank you for the response, JoeG. I understand what you’re saying and you make a lot of sense. I agree with concepts like balance and I think your metaphor of the EGO as an immutable loud speaker is very good. Our personal views may not be as far apart as it appears.
But while I believe your sentiments are sincere, it would be another matter if you took them, packaged them on a DVD and then went on television to sell them to me. Expressing and sharing ideas is good and healthy, but there is a whole other level of responsibility when you sell them with big promises, even if only implied.
There is something insincere about someone who gets rich off telling others they can have all the abundance they want just by rearranging they’re thinking and builds a philosophy that downplays hard work and effort in favor of an extreme emphasis on if it feels good it is right, and thwarts any kind of argument against it. I would actually have more respect for Dyer if he knew he was scamming the public. The problem is he doesn’t realize it because he has convinced himself that if intentions are pure then so are actions. Nothing is further from the truth.
I believe in the Adam Smith maxim: “Social good comes from self-interest.” That is not an endorsement for the greedy by any means. It just means intentions are independent of actions. In the course of helping one’s self to survive, it is almost impossible to not help others along the way regardless of your intentions toward them. Conversely, good intentions can be the must hurtful to others. I believe actions are more important than intentions. And aligning the two does not improve it. Those who have helped the world the most have not had the best of intentions. The emphasis should be on what you do, not what you think or feel.
I am a strong believer that the culture of Western Civilization, meaning a continuum of military defense from the Greeks to the Romans to the European culture, has bestowed the greatest benefits on mankind despite its shortcomings and spikes of cruelty. It is the only civilization in history that is truly self-correcting and continually improves itself. It fixes its mistakes. And what makes it all possible is its capitalist engine. If it were not for the benefits of a free market economy, Dyer would still be struggling to survive and not have much time for his idle speculation. The fact that he can stand there devoid of the natural maladies that should afflict him–his teeth don’t ache, he’s older than he should be by natural standards, he doesn’t have lice, the plague, grille, diphtheria, or cholera, all because of civilized advancements driven by self-interest and not because of any positive thinking or warm intentions–that have been near eliminated by the civilization that he adamantly criticizes. He should be praising the virtues of western medicine , but he condemns it and makes physicians sound like idiots in some of his stories. The world is largely a better place (any student of history familiar with homicide and death statistics knows what an unbelievably safe and unprecedentedly secure time we live in) because of actions not intentions. Dyer is now telling us, “if we don’t get it, and I mean really don’t get it, civilization will end as we know it.” Western Civilization has survived all the holy roman emperors of Europe, the hundred years war, the quadruple alliance wars, two world wars, the great battle of Salamis, the attack from Carthage, the Punic wars, the Spanish Inquisition, the crusades, and he says that, by comparison, the little squabbles of today are going to do us all in! Nonsense. These are the most peaceful times in human history. Western medicine has done more good for the world than a million Dyers.
Bitting the hand that is economic prosperity which feeds you is not only foolish but self-defeating.
By the way, Gary I completely agree with your last post. That’s is exactly right.
Just my 2 cents: the santa claus in a bottle comment made me think of something. Once there was a mail order product called genie in a bottle. What the buyer got in the mail was a little bottle with a message in it that said “the power is within you”. If Wayne Dyer advertised himself it would say “do you want a lifetime of abundance? Want to live a life of warmth and happiness? Then buy my product” And then what you get is a little message that says “the power is within you.” I think he’s a fraud too.
To JohnQPublic and Gary:
I agree with many of your views about the generalizations and selective misstatements that Dr. Dyer makes about the nature of life many of which have clear evidence in nature to make the opposite assertion. Many if not all of these assertions are not his invention per se but part of a larger thought movement many loosely refer to as new age thought. I would also say that I have had personal experiences that do not conform to a mechanical or scientifically valid framework for life and that some of the topics he discusses I actually agree with while disagreeing with his supporting statements and with some generalizations.
JohnQPublic, I do agree that you have plenty of reasons to disagree with some of the key statements Dr. Dyer makes on his program. Talking about proof and its importance when making statements, while I believe you have plenty of reason to question Dr. Dyer, I personally don’t believe that you have sufficient proof of your own to convict him of being a fraud (or a person who intends to defraud) either in a court of law or even in the court of public opinion.
When Dr. Dyer talks about Quantum Physics and its implications on life, he does not tell us that he obtained his knowledge of physics by pursuing his PHD degree in Physics at Cambridge University or that he studied under Steven Hawkins. What he clearly tells us is that his source for his understanding of Quantum Physics is Deepak Chopra (a non-physicist new age guru!!)
If you notice one of the central quotes he uses is Einstein’s view that the biggest question we face in life is whether this is a friendly or hostile universe we live in.
A case can easily be made that Dr. Dyer has chosen to answer this question posed by Einstein for himself, which is something he is entitled to do (as we all are, whether we are right or wrong) and then he found the evidence (I agree that mostly poorly researched and often selective) to validate his own beliefs. No different than the approach we all take in our lives so we are also guilty of poor judgment at times. In fact the scientific method starts out with a hypothesis (a belief) and then the search for evidence follows to validate the hypothesis. Many times the search for evidence proves incomplete or inconclusive so we go back and keep on looking for more evidence. The scientific community has agreed that this method is subject to cross examination and the repeated results from independent experimentation before the scientific community accepts it as a theory. This works for the scientific community but there are many areas of life that are beyond the reach of the scientific method at this time and require a decision NOW whether to believe in something or not (a trial and error or sink/swim if you will). For instance we don’t have time to wait around for science to prove God exists before we chose whether we believe or not. So we all make our decisions on what we want to believe in on major areas of life all the time for our own reasons whether the evidence we select is valid or not.
A case can also be made that he shares his views and opinions on public television and that you do not have to pay a cent to learn what his views are unless you want to purchase the very same video that you just watched for free on TV! A con typically hides the product, gets the money first then gives you fake goods. Dr. Dyer puts his program out on free public television for all to see freely and if you want to buy it after you watched for free then this is your choice!
Regarding the role of consumer protection laws taking care of this “problem†consider this, right now it is legal for the tobacco industry to sell a product that is both addictive and known to cause cancer and is responsible for over 490,000 deaths a year! Also, how many prescription medicines are OKd by the FDA only to be pulled off the market due to unacceptable research and side effects? Is this the group that is going to save us from misinformation?
If we require that the government enforce proof standards for any program that falls under the category of personal help, religious or spiritual beliefs then we would have to require that Christians produce proof that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he came to die for our sins, and that he resurrected on the third day. We would also need to provide proof that Jesus performed the miracles the Bible states he performed. Anything else could potentially “dup†people into believing false teachings!! Not only would we have to require this from Christianity as well but also from all other religions across the country and subject those statements to the same standards. Well we all know that this is not going to happen.
Personally, while I like proof/evidence and have a decent collection of physics books written by actual physicists, I do not need this level of evidence when it comes to my spiritual and emotional life and I certainly don’t need the government telling me what I should/can believe in and what I cant.
I agree that Dr. Dyer is not “the answer†and I don’t agree that all we need are his views to save us all from pain and disappointment in life but I don’t believe that government is equipped to save us from the misstatements of opinion of any public figure any more than government or any other institution\community itself can save us from the pain and disappointment of life themselves.
I also don’t see Dr. Dyer selling a program marketed as a Quantum Physics program and then delivering a program about “mumbo jumbo†and I don’t believe anyone has paid anything upfront to view the contents of these programs for either its content of physics, cosmology, geology, or any other science just to find themselves disappointed however I do understand how incomplete or unsubstantiated references to these sciences can be upsetting to some people even though as a computer professional I am not upset by inaccurate references made by non-computer people to back up their belief about anything in life!
To me his programs are about life, and yes science and Christianity, and Buddhism, Taoism, and all other religions are also part of life so it is hard to talk about life and how to live it without addressing what religions and science have to offer as guidance. What I learn from this is that if you are going to speak publicly about your understanding of any of the sciences or religion then you should do your research and make sure you know what you are talking about.
I am not defending his views, but I am willing to defend his right to express his views and if people want to give him money for his programs then I see no reason for him to refuse or for the opportunity to be denied.
I see Dr. Dyer as someone who is going through life TRYING to figure it out just as the rest of us and very successfully sharing his views on life with the rest of us whether we agree with him or not.
I have no interest in crucifying Dr. Dyer for stating his beliefs and for offering poor evidence to substantiate it, but that is my choice.
Good luck in your own pursuit.
caveat emptor.
To JohnQPublic:
I added my last comments before I had a chance to see your last comments. I really enjoyed reading your response and I just wanted to add that I understand what you are saying and I understand your genuine concerns and the potential for disappointment.
I just believe that in the end we are ALL endowed with the ability to make our own decisions and to learn from what works as well as from what doesnt work.
I dont believe we are talking about a country of intellectually inferior individuals devoid of the capacity to figure things on our own. We put things to the test, when they dont work then we try something else. Maybe this is the reason there isnt just one religion or one Self help book out there that meets the needs of all of humanity.
I agree that some of the points of view he expresses will not work as presented. When people try to see life through an “Erroneous Zone” to put his title into a different context then they will question the beliefs themselves and make the adjustments they need to make their lifes work again. I see this being similar to going to the doctor to get help with a medical problem and if you dont like the diagnosis or proposed treatment then you have the right to a second opinion and you will likely seek it if you have any questions.
What I am suggesting is that we are talking about adults who have the God given ability to discern what sounds like pie in the sky beliefs and what beliefs they want to try on for size.
I think you are doing a great service by sharing your beliefs and poking the holes into Dr. Dyer’s beliefs. In the end, people will read your comments then they will do and believe what they choose to and neither one of us can stop this.
Like Gary said: Caveat Emptor.
Good Luck.
Fascinating comments from all, except of course the obvious Christian extremists. One question, why DOES Dr. Dyer constantly mention over and over that he lives on Maui? He’s obviously not stupid, yet when he says that over and over again, it makes him sound so immature, as if he has to constantly reassure himself that he has “made it,” despite all his other supposed messages. IT starts sounding like simple “lok at me I live in Maui and you don’t, ha ha) I like listening to him, and as some said, don’t try to scrutinize or worry about his personal motives or authenticity too much (though many of your criticisms ring true, he still seems to offer help to some who could benefit from it, for not THAT much money, so who cares), but every time (about every 5 minutes) he reminds us that he lives on Maui I feel the need to roll my eyes. I AM SINCERELY ASKING THIS QUESTION. Hasn’t anybody ever given him feedback on this? I will be listening, thinking, oh, that’s an interesting thought, and then WHAM – “Where I live, on Maui, with the whales, blah blah ….there he goes again. I have lived in the Caribbean, own a home there, and visit Maui frequently, yet I don’t find myself repeatedly announcing this to everyone, in fact I go out of my way NOT to mention this in conversation since it’s sounds so obviously pretentious! (Except of course that I mention it here!)I just don’t get it. I like him, but I wonder how peaceful he’d feel if he were living in a poor, inner city environment. Just why does he say this, over, and over, and over again?! And, like anyone touting his found utopia to others, would he love it so much if all of his followers suddenly crowded his beach? (Though his beach IS obviously crowded, and crowding up more all the time!)
WindiK
It seems to me that not too many of you ware able to tune in my wavelength. If you didn’t “FEEL” me then your mind wasn’t opened wide enough or I didn’t explain myself clearly (most likely the later).
About God and Universe: these are just concepts as well. What we call God or Universe is limited by our own limitations to understand or comprehend. It may be that these concepts don’t even scratch the surface of what’s OUT there or IN here. By our own definitions we create our own reality and Universe. The scientists will try to quantify and label everything they are able to detect with their Detectors (instruments and minds) and call that reality. The religious will try to explain things that they do not understand or comprehend with a Devine being that has all the answers and creates reality. Maybe not to all, but to me it is plain to see that neither of the two camps has a hold on REALITY (a concept as well that has it’s opposite). Both camps have been wrong in the past, are wrong now, and will be wrong in the future. Will either of them comprehend the Whole? I don’t know, no one does. But this is how I see each camp:
Religious – think that reality is explained in a Book, so they keep reading and studying the same book to find hidden meanings or the truth in it. For them The BOOK of reality has already been written at the beginning.
Scientists – probe their surroundings and write new books on what they find. They are trying to compile The BOOK of reality. For them The BOOK has not been written yet. It will be written at the end.
Both camps overestimate their capacities and their ways of pursuing what they seek.
One has more faith in what they don’t see than in what they do see, while the other has more faith in what they see than in what they don’t see. They each use different sensors for “seeingâ€.
Is there more (energy, information, etc…) in the particles that make up an apple than in the “empty†space between the particles? The closer and closer you look at the apple you find that there is more “empty†space than actual nuclear matter. It’s made up of 99.9% (I don’t know how many 9’s after the decimal place, but believe me there are a lot) “nothingnessâ€. So the apple is the sum of a little “somethingness†and a lot of “nothingnessâ€.
So what does all this mean? Unless we know everything about “nothingâ€, we don’t know much at all. We know and are aware of so little about God or Universe that we are not even qualified to have an opinion. There is infinitely more than meets the eye.
Well I have to get back to work. For those who question the creation of the opposite (the opposite is created simultaneously with any creation to maintain the balance in universe) in my earlier post can give an example and I will try to show how the opposite is created as well. One thing to keep in mind is time and space. The opposite may not be evident “here†and “nowâ€. It may manifest in the future and somewhere else, but it is a “reaction†of the initial event.
Our minds may be our best friends and our worst enemies, they may help us see but also can make us blind. Sometimes you have to be “out of your mind†to see the Whole picture.
To JoeG
I feel that you have good balance and an open mind. I value your opinions and philosophy on life. Your vector is in the right direction with proper magnitude. Keep flowing. If you have a chance check out the works of Tom Beardon. I’m sure what you find, can’t be found in your current library.
I did not realize Dave Bacon’s credentials. Very impressive. I would absolutely love to hear his explanation of ultraviolet catastrophe in the blackbody radiation problem. There is a subtle, and basic, point in it I never could fully grasp: why does Planck’s constant for the quantum allow the radiation to curve off and avoid the catastrophe?
Gosh, I liked that one blissful moment over the rainbow. Sometimes, I think moments like that are worth so much more than all the WORD and THOUGHTS and ANALYSIS…
A wierd example of ‘manifestation’:
When I was 11, my older brother drove an on-off road bike. Mostly, he drove it all over our property for hours on end. 🙂 Essentially, the sound was annoying; to me, it looked boring. HOWEVER, my parents thought it was fantastic. Every wheelie he did, the 10,000 circle he road… u get the point…
So much positive attention. I convinced myself to like it. It HAD to be FUN. At least, getting some of that positive attention sounded like fun. And so, during Christmas, my brother up-graded, and I got his old on-off road bike.
Ok. I waited until Spring – all ready to impress my parents with my gusto. I was gonna get IN on some of the attention.
I had one driving lesson. Simple: pull the handle grips toward you – go faster. Release – slower. Brake.
EZ. ??? But deep down, I WAS SCARED OF IT. I DIDN’T LIKE IT. I KNEW I WAS GONNA CRASH. (But I pretended to be excited.)
(Imma girl btw)
About a week after learning to drive it – I was out on the front lawn, bored AND nervous – drivin around in little circles – when suddenly the self-conscious part of me kicked in. Where was everyone? Not only was nobody applauding… nobody was around…
Suddenly, the on-off road bike shot off like a rocket – and I tried to hold on for dear life. That faster I tried to hold on – the faster the motorcycle flew. My mind was numb – I was flooded with fear/shock – until A GREAT BIG TREE JUMPED IN FRONT OF ME and STOPPED THE HORRID ORDEAL.
(The Doctor neighbor came flying out of his house to see how I was. “Oh, I’m fine, really, honest, thank you so much…” I said. The motorcycle/bike frame was BROKEN. I ended up with the hugest bruise on my leg that I have ever seen on a human.)
Hmmm. I manifested my own fear, completely, 100% on my own. If the bike really had taken off on its own, I could have driven it forever – or until it ran out of gas – as I lived in a pretty quiet area at the time. I mean, I had to cross an acre of open land and aim for that one big tree – TO STOP ME.
I know I don’t have to explain all of that… but…
When I went into fear, I pulled the handle grips tighter and tighter making the motorcycle go faster and faster – and then focused on the one thing I was afraid of – that tree – and aimed perfectly for it.
Broken cycle only. Lucky me.
It happens ALL the time.
In my experience, I can observe how it operates in myself much more now (especially not being 11 ‘n all). I can often see often see how the opposite happens – when positive thoughts align with positive goals and positive efforts – and they’re all guided by – at the very least the golden rule (and for me, Christ’s teachings of peace, forgiveness, love…) – when it’s all combined with perseverence and holding things openly – WOW, can great progess in life be made.
Funny, I grew up in an affluent area not far from where Dyer grew up (I believe in a not very affluent area – more struggling – Detroit? Maybe?) Yet, at the time I became aware of him – he was most known for having written YOUR ERRONEOUS ZONES – which I felt was a nice self help book – but never got very far into/though it for whatever reason. He also occasionally spoke in later years at a church which I never felt compelled to visit.
STILL. WHEN I CAME ACROSS HIS PB Fundraising effort on INSPIRATION – it really did mesmerize me – not because of him, but because of the things he described – which I’ve said before SO paralleled experiences that I and fellow writers (one author in particular – a good friend who shares her experiences) have experienced. I remember thinking: Wow, maybe if you stay with a subject long enough (as Dyer has) – you evolve with it.
John Q. – I wish I hadn’t said the wounded thing. What I meant was more complicated – more like – you know so much about him – and have such great concerns. And I can see where you could be concerned. I think I said before the point about
not liking it when manifestation is made into a too simplistic term – or a selfish one. (I’m a consultant as well as a writer – and I would be so saddened if someone with a disability or illness believed they were at fault for manifesting it…for example.)
Yet, I hope people can take something constructive from the concept.
Direct TV has a lot of channels, right (conjecture – I don’t have it 🙂 ). Anyway, I think we can make a creative comparison. Nobody can watch all the channels all the time. And who wants to spend a whole lot of time passively watching tv anyway??? When there’s REAL, not surreal, life to be living? However, when you do watch a show – you PICK one. That’s where you put your focus. That’s what you take in. That’s what influences your thoughts, emotions, and physical responses within your body during that time. ANALOGY? That’s sort of like LIFE. Nobody can do everything, live everywhere, etc.
So where will you put your attention? What will your life be? And how much will you let your fear, pain, previously dashed hopes etc. get in the way of whole-heartedly enjoying the life that you believe you most want?
Too many words – even for me!!!!!!!!! Blek.
As a friend of mine says “Over-analysis is paralysis.”
Just, if you’re in any sort of mud puddle, know that you can step out of it – RIGHT NOW.
If there is a dream inside of you – you can begin moving toward it – RIGHT NOW. Do accept this life as the gift that it is. That’s my personal xyz on the subject.
Lastly, I can always tell Joe G’s entries within the first couple of sentences. 🙂 How funny. Same with John Q. Nez, etc. There must be some sort of personality/energy? 😛 we give off – even in our writing. (I don’t even have to read the thoughts – it’s the politeness, or humor, or sensitivity, etc.)
Well, for me, I don’t think I have much more to say on the subject.
NO!!! One more thing. The Hawaii thing. I know several people who live in Hawaii – one on the big island, two on smaller islands. One is a realtor (who was trying to get me to by a beachfront condo for less than 150,000 seven years ago), another a web developer/maintainer/web coffee shop owner, and another a number cruncher who is helping his company establish a branch on the island.
It has never sounded to me like Dyer is bragging when he talks about Hawaii (but again, only heard the INSPIRATION talk). Still, if ya wanna live in Hawaii – live in Hawaii!!! Or come live near me – the Santa Monica mountains and the Pacific ocean are unbelievably uplifting every time I see them (everyday). And no, I’m NOT a millionaire.
Just – be happy.
Live happily.
And Joe G, – completely assuming you’re married. But if you’re not – you should ask Dr. Bacon if he has my email address – cuz I’d love to get to know you better – seems like you have a great heart.
PS Probably no more posts from me now – as I’d be repeatin’ myself. Plus, I already had my joy – that brief moment when all diverse opinions seemed to find a middle spot of accord.
Ahhh…….
LOVE TO ALL!
PS let no stone go unturned 🙂
Zero – I did feel you – not just what you were writing. What I meant was – my brain grasped it – as a concept – but my heart and soul didn’t sense it as being a place to focus physical/emotional energy to get the most joy out of (and give the most joy to)……
But love to you to :). 😉
To Zer0:
Thanks, I really appreciate your comments.
I took a quick look at Tom Beardon’s work and it appears that his free/zero energy machines are still a work in progress from the sites I saw on google. I have looked in to FREE/ZERO energy machines in the past and while I find the possibilities very interesting, I have yet to see one work. Have you seen demonstrations of his work elsewhere?
I first heard of these from the book:
The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne Mctaggart.
I have seen claims that people have made a machine that produces energy machines based on these principles but I still dont understand why we have not seen a single demonstration on national TV yet. I mean this would be HUUUUUGE if anyone could actually make it work and whoever does it would be extremely wealthy.
On this one, I am willing to be open to the possibility of it being done one day but personally I wouldnt put any of my money in it until I personally saw it working first.
Thanks Zer0
Clsr – nice chatting with you. (!)
And I love what you shared about health.
My Grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer that had matasticized to the bone – and was given several weeks (possibly months) to live. My mother made the decision not to tell her – but to go with essentially hormonal and pill/medication oriented treatment. Actually, what my Mom focused on the most was piling on the love, fun and joy – whenever my Grandmother was awake and up.
My Great Grandmother lived to be 107 – so my Grandmother had some good health genes rootin for her – still. I think a lot of what helped her was her body feeling loved, joyful, peaceful and relaxed. (Allowing the medication to work, facilitating her body to heal…)
Anyway, seven months later – they couldn’t find a trace of cancer in her body. NONE. (She died year’s later at 97, a tuckered out heart.)
I guess I’m saying – that I believe it is the frame of one’s mind that can help health tremendously. What you wrote about what you did made perfect, complete sense to me. Congratulations and bless you for sharing it with us.
🙂 Love to you!!
To John Q.
You indicate that in order for Dyer to get on his soap box and preach he needs to have proof. I in no way believe him to be perfect; however he is someone who is putting a spiritual belief out there. NO ONE can PROVE what is spiritual, that’s why when someone believes its called faith. All I am saying is you take from what he says what you want to take, if you choose to believe that everything he says is hog wash, so be it. I do think that there are those who are extreme and follow like a lamb; however, there are basic concepts he puts out there that have helped people. If you and I had the same illness and we went to a medical doctor, what would work to cure you might not work to cure me. This is the same thing, a person in pain or turmoil may need a positive message and it’s possible his is the only one found. I will say it’s probably easy to have the amount of money he has to have the time to meditate, ponder, give, and feel secure that all will be provided. I myself have to spend a good 10 hours a day either working or traveling to work. But, if taking the idea of taking time every morning to be thankful for what I have makes my day more tolerable, than it’s not a bad idea.
To JoeG: Regarding your response to my point about consumer laws etc. I believe you may have overlooked some of what I wrote. That’s understandable as we all seem to be prolific writers in this group.
Dyer and Chopra claim healing methods for cancer and other ailments. They’re slick in that they always represent these claims through first person experiences and never outright recommendations, but they are still telling us they have cures. Therefore, public safety is an issue. In fact, there are documented cases where a pregnant women with AIDS took up their recommendations and refused AZT treatment and later had t children die of AIDS related diseases. They were convinced that using their minds as alternative to drugs would be more effective.
I believe the government has a responsibility to prevent this kind of medical advice.
To clsr: thanks for the response. My comments about proof were not on the spiritual front, but the “I can do anything I believe” including moving clouds with my mind or other “conventionally impossible” things.
John Q.
I am a cancer survivor, and I went through conventional medical treatment, however, even my doctor told me that he believed I would be ok where others wouldn’t because I went into my treatment with a positive mental attitude, he said that those who go in feeling like poor me, poor me, are the ones who work against the treatments. I’m sure if I hadn’t gotten convential treatment I would not be here now, but I do believe that part of my recovery was believing I could force my body to work with the medication. I’m 6 years out and I believe I will keep myself healthy (at least mentally) with the right frame of mind, and part of the right frame of mind is stress relief. Meditation can help with that. I do agree with you in finding it hard to believe that you can make anything happen with your mind (including the cloud thing) But I do believe that there are things in this world that are not explainable.
clsr: I can only say that I am glad to hear you are surviving and on the road to health. I cannot imagine what you went through.
There is plenty of research to support your experience. I have no argument with the idea that optimism and a positive outlook help the healing process. But this is not what Dyer and Chopra are saying when they discuss “quantum healing.” They use the term “quantum” because they believe it means “the physical is completely a manifestation of your mental image.” Therefore, they go on to say, “every molecule in your body is controlled by your mental image.” They claim that you if have a strong enough image in your mind, you can even “reverse”–not stop, but reverse!–the aging process. Dyer has said many times that he has ridden himself of all aliments once he corrected his self image. He has even claimed that autism can be cured through helping the afflicted individual to develop a positive self image. (He often cites the book “Son, Rise” to support this claim.)
Regarding your other point: the unexplainable. I agree. But religion and spirituality attempt to explain the unexplainable. And they attempt to explain it through speculative ideas and conjecture. Some things will most likely remain unexplained. Why is it not ok to just leave them that way? Why must certain individuals absolutely need an answer even if it is probably not correct? I see no reason why we need a purpose that transcends this life. What is wrong with making our purpose the here and now and building on the continuum of humanity? And that our purpose needs no other higher source than just ourselves? My purpose is what I make it, not what I convince myself a supernatural entity divined it to be.
Thank you for sharing your personal insight, though.
I have to say I never heard him say he could reverse the aging process. If that’s the case why does he look his age? He looks healthy but not like he’s “reversed” aging.
You are absolutely right your purpose is what you make it.
Nice chatting with you.
Dr. Bacon:
What about that blackbody radiation problem?
havAgr8Day, I knew what you meant by “wounded.” No offense taken. I immerse myself in study. Dyer is not my obsession as I study as many topics as I can. But I do think he is a very irresponsible and a reckless individual who needs to be taken on. Some are doing so. For example, Michael Schemer. Also, look into a book called “Fool’s Paradise.”
Regarding reversing age, this link is from Chopra. but I happen to know it was originally written when he and Dyer collaborated. Also, Dyer has publicly endorsed it. (This is before the Chopra lawsuit incident.)
http://anti-aging-news.com/articles/spirituality.htm#aging
Dyer’s endorsement of reverse aging:
“An ecstatic journey into the miracle of age reversal by two of the finest physicians and thinkers of our time. Grow Younger, Live Longer provides you with every tool to dramatically reverse your biological age. Willingly suspend your disbelief and observe yourself growing younger in every way. The best book on this subject since Dr. Chopra’s bestseller Ageless Body, Timeless Mind.” Wayne Dyer, Ph.D., author of Your Erroneous Zones and The Wisdom of the Ages
Also, regarding the age reversal idea, did you know that Chopra uses a picture of himself taken almost 20 years ago for all his recent books?
Okay, I’m promised myself I wouldn’t look… and then I did ;).
I write (as I’ve already repeated), and I consult – in a medical field in which I have a graduate degree.
It’s so interesting – because in medicine, it is called ‘the art of practicing medicine.’ Although western medicine relies as much as possible on scientific methods to establish a decision tree of healing methods – I’ve never met a physician, etc. who considered there to be only one right way. The concept is that human beings are all alive and different, and respond differently, etc.
Anyway, I believe when Chopra et al refer to biological age – that he/they are not referring to cosmetic looking age (how old we appear) but the age and health of our various organs, systems etc. In truth, the idea of turning back the clock biologically is pretty much an accepted concept in medicine these days. STOP SMOKING… and you will not only stop continuing to damage your lungs – but you will actually allow your lungs to repair themselves – thus if your lungs were very aged and diseased while you smoked, within about seven years – they would be almost pink again (as opposed to grey…) and their biological markers of effectiveness etc. would be hugely increased.
There’s actually a ton of medical stats now on the bio-chemistry of emotions – and on how the health of the body effects the emotions, and on how the health of the emotions effect the body.
Also, there is a large body of growing knowledge on what is called the chronically triggered fight or flight response (and it’s often unhealthy effects on the body) and on the relaxation response (and it’s generally health enhancing effects). Oddly enough, many of the things that alternative, or complementary medical practices have been advocating for years (such as meditation – a huge relaxation response inducer for the majority of the population) – has been found to have health inducing qualities. And when you consider that the body regenerates daily, weekly etc (depending upon what we’re referring to) – the choices you make everyday, and the thoughts (because thoughts can trigger the fight or flight/relaxation response as well) can have a huge effect on the biological markers of health (and I believe what Chopra is calling age).
About Chopra having the same picture for twenty years – 🙂 🙂 🙂 I know quite a few authors like that. I initially thought it was vanity – but later realized that for many – it’s sort of like ‘brand recognition.’ Like, Ronald McDonald never ages, right? And you always recognize THAT face :).
Anyway, I picked up Dyers book on Inspiration over the week-end at a local Barnes and Noble.
Gotta tell ya – found the little blurbs I read/skimmed VERY INSPIRING. I will also say –
he does talk about his own path (in the book) of growth – talking about his desire to take a compassionate look at all of his mistakes etc. He also mentions that he almost always experiences a ‘fall from grace’ right before he synthesizes experiences/spiritual energy (my words – sorry Bacon 😉 – to a higher level of understanding.
Maybe if his most recent PBS thing was horrible – he’s experiencing one of those falls from grace before he synthesizes it more.
Again, I only skimmed a few chapters – but I didn’t see him in the INSPIRATION book talking about himself or life like a magician holding a magic wand. He seemed to be fully aware of his history of flubs and foibles.
I guess in the end, checks and balances are always helpful. I know they are to me.
But I still wish that people could and would let go of the side of the pool more often (some anyway) – and experience the discomfort of floating out in the unknown – long enough to begin to see the outline of a brand new shore.
Is there something more? Of course.
And Bacon 🙂 will keep finding out about it in the direction he is looking, Joe G. in his own direction, and me (and all the rest of us-es 😉 in our’s. There’s lots and lots more.
I LOVED what the ministers daughter wrote eons up the posts “Practice saying ‘I DON’T KNOW…'”
What we know is infinitely less than what we don’t. I think anyone in any field would agree with that. And that’s okay. In fact, it’s down right exciting.
But LOVE – still, for me, that needs to be kept number one in terms of focus – because without it – well Bacon, the “spiritual energy” just really su*ks. 🙂 🙂 🙂
When you’re feeling down, look up – or OUT (as an astronomer might tell ya’).
Still loved Joe G’s initial post. Thought it was full of GRACE. Loaded with it.
Night night.
How funny Joe – just after I posted my lengthy note – saw your briefer one to me. HOW FUNNY. I too thought “Joe must be married because he seems quite well-loved.” CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE! And how nice that you are celebrating your 20th!! (I have a feeling I’d really like your wife too 🙂 ) Have a great party this week-end!
And I do hope you keep posting your thoughts – on this board or elsewhere – because I think the depth, breadth, and sensitivity of them are awesome.
Now, night night again to everyone 🙂
To JohnqPublic:
I wanted to respond to your comments on healing and the role of the mind vs. conventional medicine.
As you may know, there are many more cases like CLSRs and beyond than the medical community or the scientific mind can possibly explain. Many documented cases where doctors have actually written off the patients as “terminal” by all medical and scientific standards and yet these people have experienced healings that can only be attributed to either their mental resolve or to a positive attitude or to direct spiritual intervention. I have had the honor of meeting and chatting with several people with cases like this in my life.
At the same time, I agree that it is one thing to recommend that you enlist the power of your mind (or spiritual power or here’s an idea: GOD) to overcome disease and it is another to advice people not to seek medical attention at all.
My question is: Did the person you gave the example about incorrectly interpret Dr. Dyer’s advise to use the power of his/her mind to help heal themselves as “medical advise” to completely forego conventional medical treatment or did Dr. Dyer in fact clearly state that people should forego conventional medical treatments in his book?
If you could, please include a quote from his book where he makes this statement and I will gladly agree with you on this one since I too believe this would be irresponsible.
Here are some additional thoughts on this subject:
If there is in fact a mental or spiritual component to healing (even if only a selective or small measurable impact) do you believe the government should suppress this information or promote it or conceal it?
While we wait for the government to decide what to do, what do we tell the tens of thousands of people who as I write this right now are suffering at hospitals around our country being offered the standard medical treatment but who are truly beyond the help of our best trained medical doctors?
You provided a valid example of a lady who followed the “alternative†approach and avoided medical treatment and had her children die as a result, as a good reason why we shouldn’t allow anyone to suggest that the mind can be more effective than drugs. In a major study released in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found that up to 98,000 people are killed each year by medical errors in hospitals. Now imagine what would happen if we used these failures as a reason to tell people: “If you are sick, forget about going to the hospital since 98,000 people die at hospitals needlessly each year due to medical negligence so you are safer/better off using ONLY alternative treatmentsâ€. If we did this, then what we would be doing is using only the failures as a reason to ignore the conventional medical treatment successes wouldnt we? If so, can the failures in mental\spiritual healings be taken at the exclusion of the successes to now tell people essentially not to waste their time with mental\spiritual approaches to healing when many such successful cases do exist as well?
If people have in fact been cured from cancer by nothing else than the power of their thoughts or from a higher power then should we withhold this information from the thousands of otherwise hopeless cases out there right now?
I strongly feel your concern for the weak minded who may be hurt by believing unsuccessfully in alternative treatments. What do you say to the many more who will believe in conventional medicine (and nothing else) and who will die as a result of only believeing in what is still an imperfect science/system that yet does not have all the answers?
Another way to ask this would be: whose death is sadder, the death of the one who skipped on conventional medical treatment seeking only alternative treatments, or the death of someone seeking only conventional treatments when they were beyond the help of conventional doctors at the exclusion of alternative approaches that have worked for others?
To me there is no difference. What I take from this is once again, be open to doing what works and if conventional medicine works for you then go for it and if alternative medicine works for you then do yourself a favor and give it a chance. In other words give yourself the best chances for healing by enlisting ALL possible healings avenues as needed!
To JohnqPublic:
I understand and admire that you are seriously concerned about and want to protect the weak minded so please don’t take my questions the wrong way. I am just as concerned about the impact of depriving the smart ones of potentially useful ideas out of the concern that the weak minded may misunderstand the advice to the extent of ignoring their own common sense and life experience.
I also wanted to offer my comments/questions on the topic of Age Reversal which I only know little of what Dr. Dyers beliefs are on this topic based only on his quote that you provided.
I agree that the “Age reversal” idea sounds really hocus pocus, like a pie in the sky promise.
Not having read Dr. Dyer philosophy on this beyond the quote you offered, I still wonder whether you believe however that the opposite can be true.
Do you believe it is possible for a human being to accelerate or age their bodies beyond their biological years (to any extent) by eating poorly, smoking, drinking alcohol heavily and being always stressed, depressed, angry and miserable?
More specifically, do you believe there is a measurable and aging or damaging physical and biochemical effect on the body from consuming toxic substances, unhealthy foods and being under prolonged emotional distress?
I take it that like me you are not a medical doctor, so I am just asking for your general belief based on what you know about the body and the well published medical research, not your medical opinion of course.
Thanks
To havAgr8Day:
THANKS for your compliments (you made me blush) and yes you assumed correctly that I am married and yesterday we happily celebrated our 20th anniversary! Actually we have been celebrating all month and we still have a big party planned for this weekend!
You have a great heart yourself and a great spark and you seem full of life and I can tell that you are deeply loved by all who know you!
I wish you the best and please dont hestitate to address your comments or any questions you have for me in the future and provided I am still checking in, then I will be glad to respond.
Thanks,
Regarding the comment from JoeG “Do you believe it is possible for a human being to accelerate or age their bodies beyond their biological years (to any extent) by eating poorly, smoking, drinking alcohol heavily and being always stressed, depressed, angry and miserable?”
Age is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action. Entropy only goes one way: from orderly to disorderly.
havAgr8Day,
Wow the story of your grandmother is truly a testament to the power of love.
I too have read several of Dyers books, and have taken parts of them to help me see another way of looking at situations.
I know that some of his ideas are extreme; however, when my children were small I would exaggerate the importance of keeping their toys picked up in the hope they might pick things up once in a while. (Actually when they got older they asked if the “clean house police†were going to come over and if not what is the big deal. (This gives an indication of how influential I am.) I was raised knowing of the Bible and taken to church on Sunday, and yet I can say with confidence that I probably only know 10% of that book. (If that much) Maybe that’s why Dyer seems so over the top to some.
Just in case anybody besides JohnQPublic is interested. This is from Wicked Pedia.
The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh-Jeans catastrophe, was a prediction of early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation with infinite power. The term “ultraviolet catastrophe” was first used in 1911 by Paul Ehrenfest, although the concept goes back to 1905; the word “ultraviolet” refers to the fact that the problem appears in the short wavelength region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Since the first appearance of the term, it has also been used for other predictions of a similar nature, e.g. in quantum electrodynamics (also used in those cases: ultraviolet divergence).
The ultraviolet catastrophe results from the equipartition theorem of classical statistical mechanics which states that all modes (degrees of freedom) of a system at equilibrium have an average energy of kT / 2. According to classical electromagnetism, the number of electromagnetic modes in a 3-dimensional cavity, per unit frequency, is proportional to the square of the frequency. This therefore implies that the radiated power per unit frequency should follow the Rayleigh-Jeans law, and be proportional to frequency squared. Thus, both the power at a given frequency and the total radiated power approach infinity as higher and higher frequencies are considered: this is clearly an impossibility, a point that was made independently by Einstein and by Lord Rayleigh and Sir James Jeans in the year 1905.
Einstein pointed out that the difficulty could be avoided by making use of a hypothesis put forward five years earlier by Max Planck. Planck postulated that electromagnetic energy did not follow the classical description, but could only oscillate or be emitted in discrete packets of energy proportional to the frequency (as given by Planck’s law). This has the effect of reducing the number of possible modes with a given energy at high frequencies in the cavity described above, and thus the average energy at those frequencies by application of the equipartition theorem. The radiated power eventually goes to zero at infinite frequencies, and the total predicted power is finite. The formula for the radiated power for the idealized system (black body) was in line with known experiments, and came to be called Planck’s law of black body radiation. Based on past experiments, Planck was also able to determine the value of its parameter, now called Planck’s constant. The packets of energy later came to be called photons, and played a key role in the quantum description of electromagnetism.
Many popular histories of physics, as well as a number of physics textbooks, present an incorrect version of the history of the ultraviolet catastrophe. In this version, the “catastrophe” was first noticed by Planck, who developed his formula in response. In fact Planck never concerned himself with this aspect of the problem, because he did not believe that the equipartition theorem was fundamental—his motivation for introducing “quanta” was entirely different, and the ultraviolet catastrophe was not a motivation for the foundation of quantum mechanics at all. That Planck’s proposal happened to provide a solution for it was realized much later, as stated above. Though this has been known by historians for many decades, the historically incorrect version persists, in part because Planck’s actual motivations for the proposal of the quantum are complicated and less easy to summarize to a modern audience.
PS – This also fits in with our Dyer debate somewhat. As you can see, Quantum electrodynamics is pretty complicated stuff. You can’t just ‘cherry-pick’ bits and pieces of and take them out of context…just like the Bible or the Tao Te Ching.
Thank you, Gary.
JoeG, your last comments bring up 2 good points. But first, I am not out to change anyone’s thinking. While understanding and agreement are always nice, I do not expect it. This is a point where I both agree and disagree with Dyer: agree with what he says, but disagree with what he does. That is, he very often extols the virtues of acceptance and toleration of other views, but then he tries desperately to have the world adopt his view. He now goes as far to say “civilization will end as we know it†if we don’t get it—i.e., get his view. So, I’m not out to change your mind about how responsible he is. To me he clearly is reckless and there is a large body of knowledge to support it. Also, you said I’m attempting to protect the “weak.†I do not think the religious, the spiritual, or the followers of likes of Chopra and Dyer are weak. I believe they are in search of big answers, that the have a strong desire to have purpose that transcends life, and that it is not a function of IQ. But is a function of effort because challenge is effort and faith takes the easy way out. I maintain that spirituality is for the discontent.
The other point, JoeG, is your comment also demonstrates a central point I am making about faith: most of the faithful actually use what I’ll call “selective faith†or “selective proof.†That is, they’ll adopt a view without proof because it appeals to them—it’s warm and nice and tells they what they want to hear–, but any arguments that arise against their adopted faith then they want proof. Proof is really a defense mechanism against falsehoods—as it should be. The whole question is how motivated one is to uncover falsehoods. The fact that you are saying in so many words that you need more proof that he is irresponsible rather than just adopting my views outright illuminates that point. To generalize a bit if I may, even the faithful will demand analysis and proof when it is something they don’t want to believe. This is the problem with faith and the faithful: faith is only adopted when it is convenient. We all want the world to be the way we want it to be and not necessarily the way it is. Dyer preaches that very acceptance of taking the world as it is, and then describes the world in his own image—teddy bears and flowers (gag me!)–not the way it really is. What he suggests to you is that you not to accept reality but to put his positive mental spin on everything you see. He wants you to delude yourself into happiness. While I’m all for happiness, I would rather it be based on concrete thinking than ideals that are false. In fact, I will go a step further: I would rather fail with logic than even be right with faith because I would have at least expended the effort to be right. “Faith†is the lazy man’s language.
Now, you can take my word on faith, or you can demand I prove my claims, or simply ignore me. But any way you go I promise I will never tell you that civilization will end if you don’t “get†what I’m saying. The world will function fine without anyone agreeing with me.
JohnqPublic: ““Faith†is the lazy man’s language.”
Boy, that one is going to get you in trouble 😉 BTW, it reminds of one of my favorite phrases: “What is proved by religion is a lack of imagination.” Of course that sounds really really arrogant, but you have to understand that I spend most of my day trying to dream up theories, so you might say that I spend considerable time imagining the myrad of ways that the world might have been.
Thank you for the response, Dr. Bacon. I would add to your comment about how you spend your days, that you probably are not satisfied with just dreaming up theories. But that is a starting point for you and in the end if the model does not show predictability you probably put aside the theory. I bet you go through a self-correcting process. Imagination is the launching point, but it is critique and especially peer critique that determines the validity of that imagination. You don’t just take the imaginative idea on face value.
Definitely. Experiment is the final arbitraror. Imagination in a straightjacket, is the expression, I think.
To JohnQPublic:
You didn’t really answer my questions and that is OK, I respect that you dont have to and at this time I feel it is best for me to stop addressing any more comments or questions to your attention.
I just want to wish you the very best in your own life journey!
Thanks for the exchange…
Wow, JoeG, you give up so easily. Here are my responses:
Question: “Did the person you gave the example about incorrectly interpret Dr. Dyer’s advise to use the power of his/her mind to help heal themselves as “medical advise†to completely forego conventional medical treatment or did Dr. Dyer in fact clearly state that people should forego conventional medical treatments in his book? “
Response: The degree to which they took is advice is unknown. But degree is not the issue. He is not careful about his advice (i.e., reckless). He puts little emphasis on proper medical treatment and mostly condemns it.
Question: “please include a quote from his book where he makes this statement and I will gladly agree with you on this one since I too believe this would be irresponsible.â€
Response: I take it you mean on medical treatment. Some quick examples: his discussion on PBS about his daughter’s warts near her eyes and how “of course†(his words) the doctors could not do anything about it but once she starting “talking to the warts†they disappeared. Perhaps you have seen that. His talk on how serotonin levels are increased through witnessing nice acts and, therefore, are superior to taking anti-depressants. (Also on PBS.) Those are the light ones. Since I no longer have a copy of erroneous zones, I will have to paraphrase. In there he claims that no pill ever cured anything that it is your body’s reaction to the pill. True. But then he goes on to say that you can do the same as the pill mentally. False and irresponsible. There are more that I have come across, but digging them up will take some time. In general, he does not believe in western medicine that consistently points out that it is inferior to healing with the mind.
Question: “If there is in fact a mental or spiritual component to healing (even if only a selective or small measurable impact) do you believe the government should suppress this information or promote it or conceal it?â€
Response: I don’t believe the government should suppress any scientific data unless it can hurt national security. So, no. It should not do anything with it. This is not a place for government. Protecting its citizens from fraudulent medicine or related advice is.
Question: “While we wait for the government to decide what to do, what do we tell the tens of thousands of people who as I write this right now are suffering at hospitals around our country being offered the standard medical treatment but who are truly beyond the help of our best trained medical doctors?â€
Response: This is loaded with assumptions. Being beyond medical treatment does not give any validity to the views of shamans or any alternatives. Exposing these people for shamans and fraudulent claims only makes it worse.
Question: “You provided a valid example of a lady who followed the “alternative†approach and avoided medical treatment and had her children die as a result, as a good reason why we shouldn’t allow anyone to suggest that the mind can be more effective than drugs. In a major study released in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found that up to 98,000 people are killed each year by medical errors in hospitals. Now imagine what would happen if we used these failures as a reason to tell people: “If you are sick, forget about going to the hospital since 98,000 people die at hospitals needlessly each year due to medical negligence so you are safer/better off using ONLY alternative treatmentsâ€. If we did this, then what we would be doing is using only the failures as a reason to ignore the conventional medical treatment successes wouldnt we? If so, can the failures in mental\spiritual healings be taken at the exclusion of the successes to now tell people essentially not to waste their time with mental\spiritual approaches to healing when many such successful cases do exist as well?â€
Response: Wow. Again, the failures of medicine in no way validate anything spiritual. To show that anything spiritual works, you first need to prove there is a spirit. But the negation of one idea is not necessarily the validity of another. You’re building in a logical fallacy.
Question: “If people have in fact been cured from cancer by nothing else than the power of their thoughts or from a higher power then should we withhold this information from the thousands of otherwise hopeless cases out there right now? “
Response: Another built-in assumption. Who said anyone was been cured by cancer through just their thoughts? And how was it proven that it was thoughts that did the work and not the cancer just going into remission on its own?
To JohnqPublic:
I read your last response after I already sent my previous one. I respect your point of views and you are entitled to your beliefs just as I am.
While you wont receive further comments from me I am sure that you will find that as long as you keep posting your opinions publicly then you will continue to receive more opinions in return.
Good Luck and again thanks for the exchange.
JoeG, I think you just proved my point. The faithful loath challenges and become frustrated by them. Science, on the other hand, not only welcomes them but demands them.
To ALL:
I realized that this website has served its purpose for me and it is time for me to get back to work as I am falling behind and I have much to do.
I know that anyone who was actually going to benefit and get anything from what I had to say already got it and anyone else is entitled to their opinion as well and that is OK since I have other things I have to do at this time.
Thanks and good luck to all!!!
Well, then one parting remark. You waged a good debate and you gave me many things to consider. (I have a copy of your questions.) For that I thank you.
To JohnQPublic:
“Age is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action. Entropy only goes one way: from orderly to disorderly.”
True, that is the definition of Entropy. But there is also NegEntropy or Syntropy that goes the other way.
Is age or life governed only by Entropy? Don’t be too quick to form an opinion. Big changes are coming. Just wish you can live long enough (slow down your Entropy) to see what’s around the corner. Don’t let your today’s beliefs blind your tomorrow’s visions. There is so little that you know and so much that you don’t.
I’m not defending nor accusing anyone, just stating, and looking at the bigger picture.
OK, zer0. Point well taken. Are you making a case for the possibility of growing younger? If you are, how so?
I read the beginning and the end of this blog…same story different page; as is the middle, I’m certain. It’s just like men before us -men of a former era, men like you and me, discussing similar topics, arguing varying perspectives, getting nowhere…really, except intellectually closer to our own or another’s perceptions of reality, be that science based, religious, or otherwise. It’s interesting. I found the readings quite entertaining. I find people and humanity enigmatic. Our thoughts, our interactions, our misinterpretations, clarifications, emotional response, intellectual warfare, endless debates, cyclical nature, blah, blah, blah, yaddah, yaddah, ya.
“What does energy mean?” posts Dave. “I’ll tell you, it’s Christ,” replies someone else. “No! You’re both wrong. It’s neither, either, or; it’s what you want it to be, what feels right and moves the spirit and your life into positive action.” ….”Gee, Joe, that sounds good to me,” agrees the one who thinks it sounds good today. “NO. It’s not good, you fool. It’s about endotropy, built-in assumptions and cancer!”
Man before us is dead. We are alive. We too, soon, will be dead. That is a fact.
“Endotropy?” “Man before us is dead?” Is there a meaning in there?
You hardly had time to read my response, let alone think of meaning.
But for me, yes, it does hold meaning: it means what do i really want to do in this lifetime. Do I want to pass on living as I am, or have lived, or do I want change in my life. The thought that men, like us, are now dead, as are their debates and conversations, is motivating. I guess we can learn from former conversation, but not all. Point: What do I want to leave behind. How do I want to live knowing that I get no other shots at this. It’s not a dress-rehearsal. The show must go on. But do tell…I’m enjoying this act of my life. I’m new to blogs, or whatever this is, and I like the perspectives I’m gaining. However, when I wake up in the a.m., my life must continue. I want to make the best of it, as I’m sure some of us also do.
Well, I like to think I can absorb the meaning of a 188 words in a mere minute. The average reader, I believe, reads at a speed of 150 words per minute. So, 3 minutes on your post is probably adequate.
Now that I’ve had time to reflect on what you said…they still seem to be words in search of a meaning.
By the way…did it ever occur to any of you that Mr. Mystery-Man-Dave-Whatchamacallit, a.k.a. Ski-Master-Quantum-Physics-Guru/Dyer advocate-even-if-you-don’t-know-it is a fabricated being created by the advertisers that foot the bill for his blog?
Check out the “links” below (whom are they by?).
Life is short. Live it, without knowing where you’re going, and without going where you know. Ciao!
Dude, does the “J” stand for what you smoked this morning?
Wu tzu,
HONEST – hadn’t checked in on purpose for a bit.
Felt that it was getting repetitious – and also, didn’t want to get… stuck :).
What’s funny and sweet and OF COURSE: I was thinking today as I was driving – ‘I need to pop up on that sight and just write “LOVE,”‘.
🙂 🙂 🙂
How cute that you got the point all along.
Love. Love. Love.
Big bushels of it.
Love Love and MORE LOVE!
To JohnQPublic
“Are you making a case for the possibility of growing younger?”
First you need to clarify for yourself and for me as to what is “younger” and “older” (as it’s opposite).
Your body regenerates and heals itself, otherwise you would already be dead. The exact nature of this process has been studied for some time and is being further developed by some very qualified people (at least in my opinion).
Rather then me speaking for them I will direct you to the source of this info. If you’re really interested in knowing and can keep an open mind please study the info at these links (I hope the links will be posted).
I think your concern for the possibility of growing younger will be dwarfed by so many other possibilities that are about to become real.
If you find nothing useful at least you’ll know what some people are pursuing.
http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html
http://www.ifisoft.ch/test/pdf/bearden/
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html
Best regards
Wow, that’s some pretty hard evidence. Son, this is how Jim Jones got his followers to drink the kool-aid.
What, exactly, was the subject of debate again?
HavAgr8Day…come back. We’ve run out of love.
Yes, many watch who do not speak.
The debate is if Wayne Dyer speaks mumbo jumbo or not. The latest twist in the debate is Dyer’s endorsement of the “quantum healing” and “reverse aging” claims by Deepak Chopra. Specifically, do you believe that you can reverse–reverse, not stop–your aging through, mainly, positive self image? Zer0 has evidence that we are on the verge of a literal fountain of youth.
So did Ponce de Leon, eh?
Same fantasy, different century.
Hmmm…sort of like Heaven.
I did not ask you to take it as hard evidence. If you think I take it as hard evidence then you don’t know me well enough. But I see that for you if it’s not hard it’s not real. Your reply tells me more about you than it does about me.
Did you understand what you read? I only ask because the terminology and concepts may not be familiar. You will not find those in the textbooks . Please don’t take any offense, I’m not questioning your intelligence. I just think you didn’t even give it a chance. Probably your defense system reacted and closed your mind before you finished the first paragraph.
What is a “hard evidence” for you? Can you give some examples?
What are You pursuing? What have You to contribute to the knowledge base of mankind?
You think you are a very strong debater (my assumption). You are entitled to think that.
But to me you come across as a Resistor, resisting the flow of new information. As such you are not Conducting useful energy to yourself or to others through yourself. But I guess Resistors have a useful function in circuits as well. A circuit without resistance is impossible, not real (conventional thinking, “hard evidence” thinking). So I guess you serve your function of keeping everything real and conventional. Otherwise we would all follow Jim Jones.
And for that I thank you.
But I strive to be a Conductor, passing energy and information to the other components of the circuit and to other circuits. I may keep certain information in my Capacitors and later release if I no longer have need for it, so permanence is not in my nature. What I pass is not necessarily what I also keep. So what I believe at this point in time is not what I believed in the past or in the future. I try to expose myself to as much and as diverse information as possible. I keep or discard as I evolve.
I maybe as wrong about you or me as I think you are wrong about me or yourself. It shouldn’t be about wrong or right.
It’s all about change and exchange. Death (of body or mind or whatever else) is the lack of the above.
Looking forward to your exchange.
I just read “Ask and It Is Given” by Ester and Jerry Hicks…teachings of “spirit” called Abraham(introduction by Dr. Wayne Dyer). I found it an encouragingly relevant translation of, and in support of the Biblical teachings of Christ. I’m confused, though, when Jesus is itemized among a list of people in history also connected to “source energy” including Mohammed, Joan of Arc, etc. But the Biblical history of Jesus includes his death and resurrection so that we are reconciled to God through faith. Is this book submitting that the Biblical account of Jesus Christ is inaccurate? How are these two teachings reconciled?
anyone?
To m.e.:
You are not confused, you are simply correct.
Jesus is not connected to the source; He is The Source.
Does anyone have to show another that he or she has the one right way to learn or see something? Each of us has our eyes opened the way they are able to be opened. Each of us attracts the lessons and the teachers we need, and at some point, we are open to the learning and understanding and growth. Does it matter which author pens the words that shine the light so we may see how we may grow? Does it matter what inspires us if we are inspired? If good comes of it, is it bad? One does not have to choose Dyer’s way if it rings false, does one? Does one need to express one’s opinions with vituperative commentary? Or can one’s heartfelt views be put forth in a gentle manner that invites consideration and contemplation? I understand a lot of scientific things and that leaves plenty that I don’t understand at all. (For instance, quantum mechanics is way beyond me and I am just glad there are those who do get it and work with it and make the discoveries they do.)
If all the semantics are set aside, it seems the core of religion is finding some sort of peace and meaning and the guidance offered is usually (not always) that compassion and generosity of spirit is very helpful in that. Each of us finds our own way, hopefully, with the tools that move them to grow and learn.
Please be well and take good care.
To m.e.:
Never read the book, but I believe that Jesus is God incarnate. While in human form, God taught us forgiveness and love. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I would listen to your heart and know that if this book is in any way at odds with the Bible, then you probably already know the answer you’re seeking.
The God of the New Testament realized that humans will always fall short, which is why He came to earth in the form of Jesus, preaching forgiveness. The whole point of the cross is basically Jesus paying for the sins of the believers so that we have a better chance at eternal life with God.
Jesus should not be included on a list of people searching for Jesus. That doesn’t make sense.
Now, I know there will be lots of people who may have a problem with this knowledge of mine, but I’m going with it, anyway. It’s ok that they don’t agree, as I don’t judge people. I just agree with the Biblical account of Jesus being the actual Son of God.
I also agree that God uses more than the Bible to send us signs of enlightenment. There are many ways to learn something, and one can not limit God as to the way He chooses to teach.
If God wants to use this thing or that thing to teach us something, wheather it be a book or a different form of communication, He will.
But I do see the Bible as true history and lessons in the form of parables.
rather than chase our tails(so to speak) or settle for any sort of doctrine that feels good for the moment, isn’t it more important that we all strive for truth and life, as opposed to subtle and gradual deception, and kool-aid. The problem comes when truth is clouded by religious legalism, hypocrisy, manipulation, etc. God has been a faithful teacher and protector to me in the search for truth in my own life –His word promises He will answer if we just ask.
Zer0, why did you think I did not give it glance? In fact, I read it all and throughly.
Zer0, a comment on my viewpoint in regards to your “you think you’re a good debater” but “are a resistor” remarks.
I believe that the greatest gift man has is doubt. Doubt keeps us from getting in trouble. Doubt would have saved the lives of followers of Heaven’s Gate and Jim Jones. So, yes I do resist ideas until they have proven they stand against challenge. Being open is exactly why people blindly follow others. I simply try to think for myself.
faschinating blog. For me, the bottom line is that W. Dyer seems and sounds sincere, and has helped me via tapes (especially the “AAAH”) and books to feel better and manage my life more effectively.
hana.
Nothing wrong with that, hana. I will say, and this is not a contradiction to my previous posts as I have just not touched on these specific topics, his message of personal responsibility, emotional management, deliberate action (i.e., recognizing you have a choice in each action), are all good. It is just a shame he dilutes them with the pseudo-science, new age spirituality, and, the most egregious I believe, dispensing ill-informed views on western medicine.
Dear HaveaGr8Day. What is your genre of writing? I`ve been busy wanting to become a writer of fictional prose but dont know what to write about, nor how to (I do write little poems,though). happy end of summer.
hana
So, what does “Spiritual energy is the energy of abundance†mean exactly? And what then provides the energy of depletion and demise?
–I too am inspired and encouraged by Dr. Dyer’s messages of personal responsibility and empowerment. I’ve chosen to accept his ‘teachings’ cautiously, however, as he delves into ‘new age spirituality’ and supports the idea that we each have our own spirit guide–why not choose ‘enlightenment’ through the one-true-most-powerful God; and why is that not obviously better?
HAPPY END OF SUMMER HANA.
I write… anything that wants to come through me – really. And the more unconscious I allow the process to be – the better the writing almost always. Essentially – set the (OH NO!!!) intention to be open – and follow all your YESSES. (Does that meadow call you? Spend time there – and hopefully remember to bring a pen and paper. Craving the sound of waves – head toward the beach…) The biggest thing, more than anything in my life, that has helped me to move forward in creative areas, is honoring the personal fact that that is what I would want to be doing more than anything (‘cept lounging with the ones I love) if I only had a few more days on this planet. And since we all may only have a few more days on the planet – for me, I just decided to make some “sacrafices” (I don’t drive an expensive car – in fact, I sort of practice the concept of driving less car than I can afford – so that I can afford to spend more time sitting in the meadow waiting for the butterflies to land on me – the actual way I described the process of receiving creative inspiration – for years – which is why I almost zoomed through the roof when Dyer’s theme for his INSPIRATION fundraiser was so entwined with the monarch butterfly – and why his story of the butterfly landing on his finger – and his own personal WONDER and AWE {the way it came across to me anyway} just stopped me in my tracks. Truthfully, there were so many unbelievable synchronicities {close your eyes Bacon 🙂 it won’t feel so painful if you don’t read it. Just teasin’ you!!!} – that I felt as if – as if I was seeing a big sign post confirming everything I had been experiencing for several years…)
Anyway, the thing that seems to come through me most is writing that appeals to the child in all of us. I’m sorry I’m not more specific – but for me – it’s something I protect deeply as much as possible – and I don’t feel this forum would be that helpful for it.
But in terms of you – if you want to pursue your writing – then I would say absolutely whole-heartedly do it. For me, it generally equals pure joy. Truly – I once sat down to do some writing (around 7:30 pm) and after what I thought was probably close to two hours – I got up – and saw that it was almost 3:00 am. That has forever amazed me – because normally, you would have to have some very thick rope to tye me up with to keep me sitting in one place – not getting up to get a drink or use the ladies room 😉 etc – for even a few hours. So, to do something for over seven hours – with no sense other than one of sort of fully being in a river of – creative pleasure – Anyway, BLAH BLAH BLAH. 🙂 🙂 🙂
The truth though, for me.
Such happiness there.
The only other thing I would say if you want to really give yourself to your writing is: there are a lot of writing organizations out there – with a TON of resources. And while I like to feel like I’m a bit on a safari when I write (and not writing for a group-audience), I have met some of my closest friends and encouragers and fellow writers/authors that way.
And Hana? Never stay around nay-sayers if it takes away from your writing/creativity/joy.
That’s my whopping too many cents worth.
Oh wait, as always, a couple more: to Bacon:
I would guess that there is a real potential that science, and delving into the cosmos – brings you similar experiences? (Or not 🙂 ) But to bring it all home – I still think: a person will lose out tremendously in this lifetime if they take only the path that their comfortable with (or joyous in) and use it to obliterate others. sort of like a person who can only see out of one window of their house.
🙂
Wow, nobody should make any more references to me now though. Because I really don’t feel I have anything more to add – I’ll just be sayin’ the same thing – and with so many words!!!!!!!!
(With manuscripts – I sometimes practice trying to cut the words in half… With this, I know if I even re-read what I’ve written, I might not have the time to send…)
Love to you Hana. And I hope your writing finds it way into my life someday :).
Pressing SEND 🙂
xox!!!
m.e. –
remember that angel, not JohnQ’s cynacism.
Love to JohnQ too.
(Sorry, after making my post, i spotted m.e.’s sharing about the angel. JohnQ, I really wish you could feel better. I get this sense that you feel you’ve lost something. I don’t think you’re going to find it doing what you’re doing here. It seems like you’re using logic to try to understand something much more – whole. Sort of like – you know, killing the frog and dissecting –
and missing the chance to know the frog. And look – right here on this board – FROG is so nice. Just a thought – could be ‘pletely wrong. And that’s okay with me. 🙂 )
Last but not least, for my own sake – I’ve got to get quite a few things into the mail – I will do my best NOT to read or post – for at least a couple of weeks.
Where your attention goes – grows 🙂
And there are some sprouts needing some big amounts of attention in other areas of my life right now.
Thanks so much to all of you for sharing your thoughts and hearts with me.
Until we post again 🙂
XOX!!!
JohnQ: oh help, see, the quicksand?
Posted my post to Hana, and m.e. – and then saw your’s to me.
THANK YOU FOR MANIFESTING MY POINT FOR ME.
Still, love to you.
By the way, zer0, a response to your assumption that resistance is defending the status quo or “conventional” thinking. (Forgive me for addressing your points piecemeal, as there’s just too much in this discussion group for one fell swoop response.)
Religion and spirituality have been the status quo for centuries. That is the convention! The application of science is relatively new. Demonstration of proof has shown to progress humanity faster and better than religion ever did. (Although, I do not ignore historical theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and their contributions to the idea of analysis.) In fact, religion largely wants to turn the clock back in many cases (not always). Since the idea of analysis and proof, which hinges off the idea of doubt, took hold, progress accelerated in leaps and bounds.
So the resistance you mention does not have a track record of slowing things down. It sped things up! Speculation and superstition slows us down.
To complete that thought, zer0, it is precisely because challenge and resistance create a self-correcting process. Science is very quick to correct itself. Religion and spirituality want to proclaim truth rather than seek it. Religion goes to great lengths to not to change. If you sincerely want to be a conduit of progressive information for humanity (which is such a grandiose claim that I feel silly even typing it), then demanding proof of ideas is how you get there.
o.k., here’s another thought. Maybe new age spirituality isn’t a bad thing. I know that when I was a little girl, I saw an angel who tried to comfort me when I was scared. Maybe since Christ(or source energy in human form) walked on this earth, God has provided several others connected with ‘source’ who’ve been rejected as unconventional or nuts etc.
If you saw an angel, m.e., then you confirmed that the Europeans were right and that the largest percent of humanity have been wrong. Since angels originate from European culture and are not described by myriad of other cultures around the world, then Christianity must be right in its conceptual image of beyond and the Goilala tribe of New Guinea has been completely wrong. Also, I wonder if angels come in other life forms: are there dust mite angels? Or bacterial angels? How about opossum angels? I’m sure there must be earwig angels because I see so many of them around my house. Do they not have immortal souls, too?
JQP, you seem to have a lot of knowledge on various subjects and I’m not sure I’ve been taken seriously. My search for truth and relevance is sincere and I welcome any contributing discussion.
I’m sorry, m.e. It was also meant to provoke some thought as well.
JohnQ’s comments to me copied and pasted here:
“But I absolutely do not agree with the philosophy of the inner child. This is an idea that is an outgrowth of a prosperious economy as most similar ideas originated from middle class youth with a comfortable life and disposable income, not the poverty-stricken. (That was also true during the middle ages.)”
JQ, I think your “intuition” was off the mark here. I wrote that much of what comes through me appeals to the child in all of us. Earlier, I wrote that I had a book in front of my desk, entitled IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN – with Kermit on the cover. That would be an example of a book that appeals to many adults (it’s not a picture book for children). But your hodge-podge analysis of your beliefs about one’s “inner child,” etc. – ????????????????????????????
More of you comments to me:
“Additionally, your comments about writing I have not found to be true, and I do not see it with other professional writers I work with either. To get published requires a ton of editing and rewriting. It is anything but a subconsciousness flow. Unless you write for Hay House, it is almost always an extreme left-minded activity. (Dyer was turned down by many publishers after Schuster and Simon dumped him, and then he found Hay House which will does little factual investigation and will take just about anyone who can fog a mirror.) My father was a writer, too.
But, again, this discussion group is not about me. It does have a topic.”
JQ, this is one of the most extraordinary comments I have ever heard. There is a book entitled THE ARTIST’S WAY – and before I discovered the book, I stumbled upon much of it’s suggestions – in my own creative process.
I understand that you write technical material. And I understand that you probably don’t have a lot of unconscious process involved in that.
Okey-dokey.
Writing to publish within a professional field (which I have done within the medical field) is not what Hana was asking about. She asked about creative/fiction writing. ART. There is a huge difference in the writing process of both.
And the truth is: I have actually dreamt manuscripts in my sleep. Creative/fiction/art DOES NOT EQUAL professional writing within the constructs of a given field in any way shape or form.
MY COMMENTS: I truly have said everything I want to say here. I don’t feel love toward you JohnQ at the moment – because despite how much you protest – you repeatedly come across to me like someone who is entrenched in a position (and who does have a lot of time on his hands) – and who also has an agenda.
I think humility, and encouraging others – is one of the highest things one can offer. And I’ve tried to offer it here (the encouraging). But the well is pretty dry at this moment in time.
Your question about who my publisher is? What????? The only person I am aware of in recent years with just one publisher is probably Dyer. And it is Hay House – and they all seem to be working very well together. I’ve never published with Hay House. But I’m certainly not going to shift over to now sharing with you my professional creative associations. Again, most CREATIVE writers that I know of – publish with multiple publishers – if they stay in the field very long. And not everything I write is geared for a book – again, I write what wants to be written through me.
I hope what I wrote was helpful to HANA.
But I won’t be checking back on this sight anymore. I like things that expand me.
And I feel like you are a dominant presence on this site, and that you constrict things. I’m glad you liked the term cynic – but do you know the current definition of the term? It is one who in general harbors a deep mistrust in the integrity and natural good-will of one’s fellow man. For me, cynic’s are exhausting.
I want to use the time in my life to move forward – not to parse sentences and words with someone who is cynical about – well, what are you not cynical about?
All I could think earlier today – after I sent my last posts – was: now I understand how people who can never be sure of love (what is love? does it really exist? I can’t prove it in a laboratory. will you love me forever? I’m cynical. Prove it….) can drive away the very people who could love them, be-friend them, grow with them, etc. It’s a loose, strange association – but it’s what randomly went through my head with you.
I’ve said what I’ve wanted to say about what was important and interesting for me.
No more now.
Do you know where I feel I failed? I failed with you JohnQ. I should have bowed out before I got to this point. There are just too many other important things to do.
(About Mother Teresa, I was the one who illuded to her inner glow. And the fact that she questioned her faith just as she lived it – doesn’t throw me. I’ve probably read 50 times more about her life, efforts, and the fruit of it – than about Dyer’s. If you are at all like me – reading her writings – won’t make you concerned that she questioned her faith. Again, checks and balances within any human being.)
And in terms of your life being a tremendous success – I hope very much that that is the case.
Someone wrote previously that they saw you as a resistor – for me it just seems like you have an agenda. And that you love to debate only for the purpose of advancing that agenda – or maybe – no, I don’t even need to write that.
But truthfully, your agenda is not attractive to me.
Bless you, good luck to you.
Take care of yourself.
I’m glad someone else on this site said you had many friends (maybe it was Dyer in disguise – because he could probably overcome your cynicism with love better than the average bear)
And if you say your life is wonderful; then I will wish it so – because that will give me a lot of peace.
Sorry folks – I failed in the end – because I do NOT feel love for johnq. at this moment.
But there is hope: I probably will tomorrow, when I’ve detached from this situation – and know that I’m not mis-using my energy – as I have been in these last few exchanges.
I’m feeling better already.
Love to all.
XOX – really. 🙂
But love also to myself by releasing this now.
The End. 🙂
Just out of curiosity, havAgr8Day, who is your publisher?
Thanks for the thoughts, havAgr8Day. Normally I do not like to speak personally in discussion groups because it strays from the topic.
Your senses about me are not accurate in the least. This is the problem with people who trust intuition so much–it is almost always wrong. (Ask any scientist how many times their gut was wrong before it finally was right. It’s very lopsided.) I have had a tremendously successful life, married just once longer, probably, than most of you have lived (I absolutely adore my wife going on 30 years–how many can claim that?), and to be honest I’m an extremely happy person. I love science (it’s my passion) and I think cynicism is a wonderful thing. In fact, if you read about the Cynics of ancient Greece you’ll see that
much of your new age philosophy originates there. It’s just evolved from political activism to more a universal language adopting the “feel good” element along the way.
I’m a voracious reader (about 300+ books a year–I am semi-retired and so have a ton of time on my hands), I’m a writer by profession, I travel a lot (I logged over 280,000 air miles last year), my son is a successful rock musician, and I have nothing to complain about. In fact, knowing as I do some the details of Dyer’s life and his upbringing, he is typical of the type of person who was wounded at a young age and then spends his entire life telling everyone how happy he really is. I see no need inundate people with my feelings. But truth be told, I am internally a very optimistic person. I just do not believe that true happiness or true optimism is something you can detect or should be worn on one’s sleeve.
But I absolutely do not agree with the philosophy of the inner child. This is an idea that is an outgrowth of a prosperious economy as most similar ideas originated from middle class youth with a comfortable life and disposable income, not the poverty-stricken. (That was also true during the middle ages.)
Additionally, your comments about writing I have not found to be true, and I do not see it with other professional writers I work with either. To get published requires a ton of editing and rewriting. It is anything but a subconsciousness flow. Unless you write for Hay House, it is almost always an extreme left-minded activity. (Dyer was turned down by many publishers after Schuster and Simon dumped him, and then he found Hay House which will does little factual investigation and will take just about anyone who can fog a mirror.) My father was a writer, too.
But, again, this discussion group is not about me. It does have a topic.
Did you all read today that Mother Theresa’s personal letters reveal she questioned her faith for almost 50 years? Who was it in the group that used her as an example of how an external “glowing” reflects internal happiness?
I read about Mother Theresa. Shook me up.
What have you published, havAgr8Day?
Where did you go, Zer0? JohnQPublic took the last round.
JohnQPublic: What do YOU write?
Gary: what does a Taoist poet think about Dyers new book “Wisdom of the Tao”?
JoeG: have you abandoned us?
I write technical books and articles. Mostly on computer science. Actually, a lot of income that stems from writing is really through consulting and speaking engagements, not the books themselves. So, I’m not a fiction writer. My son is the creative one in the family. (Although, I do play jazz piano, so I’m not entirely without a right-side to my brain.)
I understand that my dry writing style and frequent use of active voice comes across as mean or frustrated to some. I suspect that is the case with havAgr8Day. But I can assure you I mean well and take no umbrage with anyone in this group. The image I usually form about others in debates like this is pretty positive. I believe people to be basically well-meaning even if I think their thoughts are incorrect.
It is not my intention to upset anyone or be condescending to anyone in anyway. Even those with whom I disagree (which for some odd reason turned out unexpectedly high here–usually I find friends in sciences forums) I believe make insightful points.
Everything I have posted here is an attack on ideas not people. (With the exception of Chopra and Dyer, who as public figures deserve it.)
You have many friends here, John. If we all agreed, what would we have to talk about? What is life without challenge, or, to paraphrase you, how can we learn without doubt? Even jday would agree with that.
JQP,thank you for your kind apology, although I don’t feel it was necessary. Your banter is refreshing to me, as both my father and husband are usually way too serious when I’m not. I’m a little too intense at times, and I’ve tried to balance that with my dry sense of humor.
I think I’ve pretty much come to terms with my confusion regarding new age spiritualism and Dr. Dyer. My mom is not a fan of my constant questioning of ‘established truth’ and at the age of 40 with my own little girl, her disapproval still knocks me off balance at times.
that really sounds pathetic
That really sounds human. Welcome to the club.
No, you don’t sound pathetic. In fact, that’s where we have common ground, m.e. I’m glad to hear you’re questioning established truth. That is how you will get answers. My advice is to not give up and always, always think for yourself and never blindly follow anyone. If the citizens of Germany had done the same in 1932, nazi (I refuse to capitalize that word!) Germany might not have emerged because what they were being told did not make any sense. So, keep at it!
thanks.
my constant reference point exactly. I remember being in highschool and reading about Anne Frank and the holocaust, slavery, KKK etc. all in the present (20th) century. And I am still amazed today by most people’s complacency and lack of fury!!
excuse me, — kkk–
I have been to a Wayne Dyer lecture, and he gives 100% to his speaking and connecting to the audience.
He’s more than a hawker of books, and cds and dvds.
He has shared the whole journey of his life, from his difficult and troubled beginnings – to the moment in his 30’s when he had a mystical event take place regarding his Father.
He was able to quit drinking and focus on health by becoming a long distance runner, and over the years, he has shared his budding discoveries in the Positive Thought Movement – with a large audience eager to find meaning and contentment in their lives, and Dyer is the king of culling great works – and dispensing the core ideas in easy to read format.
Hi there havAgr8day,
I have been in the presence of Mother Theresa, and the energy, warmth, and care was so amazing, and I sensed she was deeply sincere in her love and service to the poor.
I will never forgot that feeling of love and grace – radiating from her. I have no doubt that her personal inner journey was a struggle at times. I have had many intense moments of questioning my beliefs, my intentions, and what I am here to do in service and how best to express my love for the Divine gift of Life itself.
Love to you,
~ Kate
I am curious, then Kate, and others, how do you feel about her personal letters to priests, just recently revealed in the last few days, where she says:
“I am told God loves me–and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”
“Inside it is all dark and feeling that I am totalty cut off from God.”
She also wrote the prayers “did not work” that they were either “spurned” by God or “empty.”
And, she said she that she did not any longer see “Christ’s presence.”
Hi JQP,
Do you feel Mother Theresa ‘failed’ in her spiritual practice? Because she had doubts? She seems to have had enough courage and – the honesty it takes – to expose her deepest fears, in letters she wrote to her confidantes.
She was and continues to be for many, and immense inspiration.
Thank you, Kate. No, I do not feel she failed at all. What I think this points out is that someone so close God (as we believe) says prayers don’t work, does not feel God’s presence and that God seems be inactive in her life and others’. Contrast that to Dyer who says he feels “the source’s” presence in everything he does and expounds endlessly that prayers in fact do work. (I guess God likes Dyer better than Mother Teresa.) On another point, it also shows that one really cannot necessarily determine one’s inner happiness by their external behavior (as havAgr8Day posted earlier; sorry to see her go.) Mother Teresa was actually in internal “agony” (her words).
So, do prayers work? Mother Teresa says no, Dyer says yes. Is God present in our daily lives? Mother Teresa says no, Dyer says yes. Was her outward “glow” reflective of her internal contentment? Turns out it was not.
what I think is that Mother Theresa, in the true spirit of Love and Compassion, chose to minister to poor souls in hell on earth and separated from God…that right there IS emptiness and darkness
You ask great questions John!
This one in particular intriques me,
‘do prayers work’?
My answer is Yes, and No.
the paradox
My life is the working ground of all paradox! 🙂
I believe as you – Mother Theresa did not fail in her service to the poor.
She did the very best she could – and really has made an impact.
Contrast this with the work of Wayne Dyer.
Is his work of less value?
Do you feel he is not being honest when he says – what in essence, is the direct opposite of what Mother Theresa reveals in her letters.
Has Wayne Dyer attained personal happiness within himself and his relationships to his family, his friends, and to his community, and to the larger community which he writes for?
He has been candid in past work in books and lectures, about his struggles with addiction, and his trouble with his daughter, and his failing in marriages.
He says he has made contact with ‘the Source’. What does this mean? how does it apply to his life?
Thanks for a great discussion!
~ Kate
A great response, Kate. In fact, an outstanding set of questions. (Where have you been hiding?) I completely agree with your comments on her service to the poor. I’ll attempt to address your questions one at a time.
Question: “Is his work of less value [than Mother Teresa’s]?”
Response: I don’t really have enough information to answer that. For all my criticisms of Dyer, I do believe there is much value. The degree of value would need some kind of measurement and that is where I’m coming up short. What is the best yardstick for value of this kind? But since she did not go on PBS and sell DVD’s touting her charity and tell others “follow me, I’ve got the anwsers” I have to say she gave value in a more humble manner and more consistent with what I believe is true charity.
Question: “Do you feel he is not being honest when he says–what in essence, is the direct opposite of what Mother Theresa reveals in her letters?”
Response: I do think he is honest and lives in a manner consistent with his message. However, I do think he is unintentionally reckless in some ways, and I think the fact that he does not welcome open challenge diminishes his claims. But I do think he is sincere in his message. (On a slightly related strand in this discussion, I do not think Deepak Chopra is sincere. But that is outside this exchange.) Finally, I do not think he does his homework before treading into some deep topics and winds up offending Christians, scientists, Buddhists, etc. in one fell swoop.
Question: “Has Wayne Dyer attained personal happiness within himself and his relationships to his family, his friends, and to his community, and to the larger community which he writes for?”
Response: Probably so. Again, it’s a lack of a yardstick that makes the answer difficult. But I also believe that the truly happy do not necessarily devote much time to trumpeting their happiness to the world. I believe that perhaps the happiest of all will never be heard from and will offer little external evidence.
Question: “He says he has made contact with ‘the Source’. What does this mean? how does it apply to his life?”
Response: Good question. I do not know. His description of the source actually seems pantheistic and therefore is nothing more than another name for nature.
My take on the recent revelations from Mother Teresa’s letters and how they apply to Dyer’s claims is this: if her letters revealed that praying did in fact work for her, that she did sense Christ’s presence (I’m extending that to mean the same as God and “the source”) in her undertakings, that Dyers and others would be waving this on stage like a winning lottery ticket. His response is yet to come, but I believe it will be more of the what David Bacon described earlier as the “heads I win, tails you lose” logic. If his ideas are externally supported, we hear about it. If something occurs that contradicts his claims, then he presents that something as either flawed or irrelevant. What I would like to see is that he directly takes on the contradictory evidence. Either by openly questioning his own position in light of the new facts or developments, or strengthening his position by showing precisely the contridiction’s shortcomings. I would like to see a self-correcting course of thought.
Some questions back to you, if I may:
Do you think that his often stated criticism of western medicine and practices dangerous for some?
Why do you think he touts open questioning of authority but says to his followers that they need to banish their doubts when it comes to his claims? Should I then also banish my doubts and listen to the unsupported claims of racists?
If prayer paradoxically works (i.e., God assists those who ask) but does not (i.e., assistance is not given to those who do not “need” it), how can we say anything about the effectiveness of prayer?
I have to also say that I expected one of the counter points to mine regarding Mother Teresa and the effectiveness of prayer might be she was the answer to others’ prayers. That she didn’t see it because she was it. (But I still maintain that prayer really does not create change, that we do through action.)
Well, it’s a shame we lost havAgr8Day. But in my experience this is typical of those who claim the loudest about their inner peace and happiness. They actually tend to exhibit the most inner turmoil.
A few random questions:
– Do you notice a common pattern to those professing the most love in how they exit the discussion? One was “I’m leaving” then later “I’m really leaving!” then finally “I’m really leaving now!!” Why the need for such dramatic exits? If one doesn’t like it, just go quietly. It seems akin to, “I’m taking my marbles now and going home and you’re gonna really miss me when I’m gone!”
– About 10 years ago I saw Chopra on Bill Mahr’s show, “Politically Incorrect”. Actor Patrick Duffy was on, too. At one point Chopra blew up, Patrick Duffy patted him on the back and said, “you need to calm down, buddy.” Funny stuff.
– Why did havAgr8Day felt she needed to love someone who she only knew through writing? (She said she “failed to love” me. That’s ok with me, as I knew nothing about her and for all I know it could have be the love of a triple ax murderer.) It is natural for the strange to be greeted with distrust. (Just ask my dog.) Why isn’t distrust a good starting point? That is, shouldn’t trust be earned and not just given away freely to just anyone?
– One earlier comment of mine, posed in sarcastic way (for which I apologized), actually had a sincere basis. If all lifeforms possess an immortal soul, and souls from the afterlife occasionally drop by the form of angels (you can substitute “angels” with ghosts and other apparitions), why wouldn’t other creatures do the same? And I mean the really ugly ones like Jerusalem Crickets (potato bugs), tarantulas, and rattlesnakes? And why not single celled creatures like paramecium or amoebas?
If my questions infuriate others, I’m sorry in advance.
Wow! I chanced upon Dr. Dyer on PBS. I will start by saying that i have not read everything all of what you have posted..it simply would take a ton of time! But as a mother who has lost her only child, I feel the need to make a comment. The ONLY way for me to survive life is to hold onto my faith in Jesus Christ. Just as my whole world has crumbled to the ground, my only way to survive is through my faith. Yes, there are many times when I feel that my prayers are unanswered…that my God does not hear me. But I know in my heart, that God IS with me…that He IS holding me up…and He IS helping me to survive a mother’s worst nightmare. Maybe I should say nothing as I know nothing…but through my own heartache, I have tried to help others through their heartache. Does positive thinking help us? Well, it certainly cannot hurt! When I go to my dark side, I pray to God to deliver me from my demons; the demons which tell me over and over again that it should have been me who died…not my beautiful child. Before I had my daughter, I had many surgeries to have children. God gave me ONE. He loaned me this special angel so that I might grow in faith and service. But not until I lost her have I really achieved that goal..and I continue to do so.
I am a scientist as well. And I truly do not find a conflict in my beliefs and in science. Science is a conjecture of what we believe to be true. Does it have to conflict with religion? Could there be different meanings for the same words? Science does its best to prove what it says…but we know that is not always the case. there are things we just have to believe to be true. But if those things are not true, our whole scientific system falls apart. Consider Euclid’s underlying belief that through a point there is EXACTLY one line parallel to any given line. Well, that is NOT true on the planet earth! By definition, parallel lines are lines that never meet. But consider a point on the sphere. There are an infinite number of lines (actually circles) that pass through a given point and never meet and are “paralle” to any given line. Our scientific method is only as good as the assumptions we make in our system.
So, what is the point here? We are given situations and we are given a choice as to how to react to those situations. We cannot change how we FEEL. I am perpetually sad about the loss of my only child. But how I react to that IS my choice. I can choose to follow those demons that haunt me…those demons that blame me…those demons that tell me all is lost. Or I can choose to look to the light and feel the love of God. Well, you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out! However, sometimes it is not so easy to make that choice. Sometimes those demons are so strong and so powerful that to fight them takes every ounce of energy that you have. Then you must give your life to God because it is the ONLY way you will survive. Faith is what might be when faced with things that cannot be. It is looking for things that can be, opening our minds to possibilities.
Don’t you people have anything else to do?
Geez, get off your ass and go do something.
The way to do is to be – Lao tzu.
The way to be is to do – Descartes
Do be do be do – Sinatra
Be a good Do-Bee
— Ms Jean of Romper Room
Smoke a good doby
— Cheech and Chong
Despite the time I do have on my hands, I have to agree with Trish. To go a step further, what the world really needs is serious people with serious solutions and fewer smiley faces and people roaming around claiming they “love everybody.” For the child-like, put the toys back in the toy box, turn off the cartoons, roll up your sleeves, dig in and truly help the world improve. You want to help the poor? Then go to South America and help build houses for those who can’t afford them. Go to New Orleans and help rebuild (which I have done). That’s how you help. Improvement takes hard work not hugs and kisses.
ToJohnQPublic:
Opinions are not something you should apologize for. Ever. Many of your comments made me think a little harder, even if I didn’t always agree.
In fact, there were some I did agree with.
Most people come to blogs like this looking for answers and looking to pose new questions.
This page was intended to be blogs about Dyer, and I think we share the same opinion.
There are many different styles of writers here. Some will argue, “What about the good?”, and some will say, “What about the bad?”
And I guess some will say,”Get off your ass and do something.”
That was both funny and insightful, by the way. Your response to that was good. There are serious solutions to serious problems. But I don’t think we need less love and smilies.
Wait a minute, I know what you mean now—we need less of the CLAIMING to love, etc. Gotcha. See once again, you made me think a little harder.
I agree. Patience is a hard attribute to master.
Debate is tricky sometimes in that some people will get very frustrated if they can’t “win” the debate. I look at it like boxing—Two people trying hard to get the knockout, but after the fight they(hopefully) will shake hands and say, “Thanks for the challenge.” Win or lose.
My opinoins about some things changed, but I never felt like I lost—I just changed. For the better. Thanks to people like you and Gary, Joe G, nez, and havAgr8Day, etc.
Anyway I have to get off my ass now(thanks Trish). Just wanted to say that as many different opinions we have, don’t be sorry for expressing yourself.
P.S.
Gary’s last comment was done well. I like Sinatra.
Reply to Wu tzu:
Why would I read somebody’s interpretation of the Tao Te Ching when I can read the many translations of the original? And…
if one needs interpretation it is quite easy to find dozens of books written by professional scholars of Chinese philosophy. Dyer appears to me to be a ‘johnny-come-lately’ amateur who is just taking advantage of these teachings for his own gain. If not, why wouldn’t he actually take Lao tzu’s advice and be quiet?
Awesome! You’re a voice of reason, Gary.
Zer0’s back.
Well said JQP (we need action , not words).
I don’t see how you guys can be on the blog during the weekend. I was building a patio/deck over the weekend under the hot S. Calif. sun from 9am to 9pm. Monday morning I couldn’t straighten out. By back and hands are killing me. Finally rolled off the bed and dragged myself to work.
Unfortunately I don’t have the luxury to read and write as much as I want to. JQP I envy you. Right now I’m writing from work during my lunch break. I have an 18 month old daughter that takes most of my time. But I give that time to her with love.
I’ll scroll back and see if I can reply to some of the comments. A great week to everyone.
No you don’t, Zer0. Trust me, life’s better on the upward side when you’re full of piss and vinegar and everything is coming at you. Enjoy that little girl like there’s no tomorrow. One day you’ll get up and that little girl is a thing of the past. It is unbelievably fast. The empty nest is deceitful.
JQP, in response to your 8/24/07 comments.
You probably do not see my doubtful side in my writings. But I may be more doubtful than even you, because I doubt today’s science camp also together with the religious. Let me continue and address your comments from 8/25/07 as well.
Today’s conventional science has become a sort of religion. The textbooks that the future “scientists” are learning with have old and erroneous information. The concepts that we have been taught and are still being fed have been shown to be in error. But the “Vatican” of science still “preaches” the conventional and the status quo. My point for the electrical circuit analogy in comparing you to a resistor was to show that, as the religious were doubtful about the scientific method centuries ago (and still are), todays conventional “scientists” are doubtful about the emerging new science and scientist, which emerges from the doubt about the validity of what we have been preached as scientifically proven truth.
I guess the difference between you and me is that you doubt religion and put your faith in todays science and it’s methods, while I doubt religion and todays conventional science and have more faith in tomorrow’s science which is born because there are those who continue questioning when others stop and accept the status quo.
And you are wrong about science being quick to correct itself. There are many concepts that people have gotten Nobel Prizes for and been experimentally proven, contradicting the conventional. These findings have not made it to the textbooks or have become conventional. The main body of science is 50 to 100 years behind in certain areas. It’s like in medicine, the latest research findings are at least five years ahead (more like 10) from getting to the doctor who is going to treat you. The patient needs that info today not 5 years from now. There is nothing fast in bureaucracy.
I’m not even going to reply to your “If you sincerely want to be a conduit of progressive information for humanity (which is such a grandiose claim that I feel silly even typing it), then demanding proof of ideas is how you get there.”.
You obviously missed the point. The book does not have to prove the validity of what’s written in it. It’s just a conductor of the information. The writer has the obligation to put on those pages correct information and the reader has the obligation to check the facts for himself. I guess I did reply to your statement.
Well I have to get back to work. My back still killing me.
WARNING:
All statements made by Zer0 are for information only. Zer0 does not claim to have “true” information. Zer0 only knows what information he has been exposed to and remembers only the information that was filtered by his mind and accepted as something useful to keep and pass along.
He who gets exposed to information from Zer0 must do their own research to determine if the information is beneficial and worth keeping.
A little serious humor 🙂
Thanks for the wise advice JQP.
She Is my tomorrow. I want her to grow up and be smarter, wiser, stronger, faster, etc….. than me.
I want her to discover and see the things that I will not be able to. But most important I want her to be an independent and free thinker, having no fear to challenge the conventional and status quo if she finds a reason to doubt.
I love that little girl….
I recently read that the first person to live for 500 years (thanks to Science) is alive today.
I recently read that the first person who will step foot on Mars is alive today.
That could be your daughter, Zer0.
But also (just to keep our interchange controversial) I have to admit that, though I have great faith in Science, I will never give up on God. Too many miracles to account for with logic…or Science.
Don’t forget to mention that to your daughter.
“I recently read that the first person to live for 500 years (thanks to Science) is alive today.”
500 years you say, Huh… and I thought the “Weekly World News” had shut down.
Correction (grammatical): who ‘would’ live for 500 years. (Re.: CNN).
Grammatical correction granted. But still, the amended claim that:
The first person *who would* live for 500 years (thanks to Science) is alive today.
Not bloody likely.
Quoting from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/19/aging/index.html?iref=newssearch
“There is a dramatic and intensive push so that people can live from 120 to 180 years,” he said. Some have suggested that there is no limit and that people could live to 200 or 300 or 500 years.”
“Outside the conference, many scientists who specialize in aging are skeptical of such claims and say the human body is just not designed to last past about 120 years. Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease, they say failure of the brain and other organs will eventually condemn all humans.”
“These people spout off as though a large part of the population is going to be able to do something like this. It’s just way beyond reality,” said Thomas Perls, who leads the New England Centenarian Study, the largest such analysis of the oldest of the old. “It’s just pure science fiction.”
“We are fast approaching what our bodies are capable of achieving,” he said in a telephone interview. “To get even the average person to be 100 or to get them to 180 is like trying to get a space shuttle to Pluto.”
“It’s certainly unlikely any time in the near future,” he said in an interview. “Sure there is a possibility but there is no data currently available to suggest ways that would happen.”
HavAgr8Day, many thanks for the inspirational suggestions (esp. the one about not writing for an audiance). even more thanks for the warmth between the lines. Hope you`ll be back soon.
Dear HavAgr8Day (2):
me and (the other) frog also loved the reference to missing knowing it in vivo. Quaaa . (or what is the English word for “Ciao ” frog-style).
hana
Alas, seems this forum has been partially co-opted by what appears to be teenage girls wanting to console one another. The topic of this group was an out-and-out criticism of Wayne Dyer. It would be nice if it were an actual academic debate from serious minds. But I guess that is not the case. I do not believe what this has become is what David Bacon intended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OruQy-X32O0
Wu tzu, thanks. I don’t know in what she would be the first but more importantly I would want her to be healthy and happy no matter how long she lives. For me healthy body and healthy mind come first. Everything else is secondary.
Regarding God: Are you saying that that if the miracles could be repeated by men then you would lose faith in God? I hope this is not the case because the science that I am referring to and the technology based on that will perform even bigger “miracles” than what you are talking about. If the concept of God fills a need for you then it doesn’t matter if there were miracles performed or not. I think many people take the expression “Gods children” literally and think like children about God.
I agree with JQP about the forum but admit that I have veered off the subject myself. My apologies. Tell you the truth I am not really interested in criticizing Dyer. There are bigger issues that I would prefer to spend my time on. If anyone knows of a blog or forum that fits better the subjects that I am discussing please point me in that direction.
ZerO: The Intent Blog (Deepak Chopra), but this one is more fun.
Regarding, Zer0’s comment: according to George Lakeoff in “Moral Politics,” world views of government and even religion are extensions of views on parenting. While his book is mostly on government, he touches on religion, too, just a bit. For example, those who believe in a nurturing supportive parenting style (they don’t spank, they don’t use reward and punishment as a primary system of rearing, et cetera), tend to believe in a nurturing God and not the traditional Christian God. Conversely, those who believe in corporal punishment with their children, use reward and punishment style of rearing, then to believe in a God who issues reward and punishment: heaven and hell, for example. He says that our world views are very much shaped by our views on parenting.
Does that make those without kids atheists?
🙂
Ha! LOL! Had not considered that. I should have qualified my post with a “those who believe in a god” clause. I doubt that a lack of belief has any relationship to parenting views because we don’t think of the universe as having a parent in the human sense.
Hello again John,
(from your comment dated 8/26)
I agree about your observation – it seems sometimes Wayne Dyer picks up on pseudo-science. I remember reading about Sanctuary, in Wayne’s book ‘There is a Spiritual Solution to Every Problem’ – which alleges healing by praying over pictures. WD himself suffered a heart attack as he was finishing writing the book.
There are elements in his life (imo) which contradict his teaching/preaching.
I find Mother Theresa so remarkable – in these newly discovered letters – to be able to write about her fears, doubts and not ‘make pretty’ the dark feelings, and her awareness that Life can be very difficult.
Thanks again for your great questions and this discussion.
~ Kate
Thanks, Kate. Your mention of Dyer’s heart attack. That seems to only lend more support about how biology really dominates so much of us regardless of our thoughts. Here you have someone who has led a very, very positive life for a long time (he has written so for over thirty years), has longed practices mind over biology (going back to the eighties), told us you can get younger by thinking so (that claim precedes his “There’s a Spiritual Solution to Every Problem” book, so was practicing that before his heart attack), then suffers the attack. My father who never practiced anything Dyer preached, ate horribly his whole life (donuts, Dr. Pepper, ice cream everyday) , never exercised (he was a writer), smoked for many years, was not really a positive person, and basically never did a thing Dyer said. And yet my father never suffered a heart attack or any other serious ailments. (He certainly did not think “young.”) In fact, he lived will into his eighties and almost reached ninety. (I had a grandfather who lived well into his nineties, smoked his whole life, and claimed he lived so long because he had eggs every morning of his life. Understand that I don’t believe it was the eggs, as I think it was in the genes.) Yet, Dyer has told us many, many times how to avoid diseases through positive thinking, that ulcers (which we now know is caused by the H. pylori bacteria, not mental stress) are caused by thought, as well as heart attacks, et cetera, and yet there it is. He just cannot substantiate his claims and his own life even contradicts them. How one thinks I believe has some influence over one’s biology, but I think he overstates it dramatically. I think action far outweighs thought when it comes to improvement of any kind. Yes, thought precedes action, but it is the action that makes the real difference.
By the way, WH, I thought that that video you posted by the girl was great. She’s one smart kid. There is hope.
Well said JQP (your comment to Kate).
The so called “healthy lifestyle” preached by the so called “medical community” has led to nutritional deficiency which is the main cause of the majority of ailments. Heart attack is not caused by cholesterol, it is a nutritional deficiency problem. In fact the older we get the more cholesterol we need to stay healthy. Of course the “medical community” will keep leading the public to believe that cholesterol is to blame so they can push their cholesterol drugs. Conventional medicine and doctors have become drug dealers, they have a prescription for any ailment. If one drug doesn’t work they have a dozen more that they can try on you. It’s OK that thousands of people die each year from the drugs prescribed by the well meaning doctor. Of course there are exceptions, but when it comes to medicine it’s “buyer beware”. Conventional medicine is great for patching injuries but when it comes to prevention and finding the underlying cause of the disease and treating it, they cause more harm than do good in the long run. No drug can do for you what good nutrition can. And I am not talking about the food pyramid that they have come up with to represent good nutrition. Only if you new who and how they came up with that pyramid.
John, those eggs that your grandfather ate every day were just as important as his genes. Eggs have a lot of nutrition and cholesterol. Only our body can heal itself. Nothing that any doctor can do or prescribe will heal our body. Positive thinking and attitude will help a little, but to help our body do what it is designed to do we need to provide it clean organic unprocessed nutrition. It will repair itself even if you smoke, have cancer, or any other ailment. Of course there will be exceptions. If the body’s self healing mechanism is genetically damaged or gets damaged later by an accident or by the “well meaning” medical system with it’s drugs, then no amount of positive thinking or good nutrition can overcome that. But I am sure that the new science that’s coming can repair the damage to the healing system of the body.
If you want to know how long you can live following your doctor’s advice on cholesterol and nutrition then find out how long doctors live. You will find that the “experts” on heart disease die from heart disease themselves, etc. etc.
Go ahead and trust the “experts” with your health, if something goes wrong see if they will take responsibility for it. Only you have the responsibility for your health. Your doctor will go on with his practice even after your death caused by his well meaning advice and drugs.
I am not advocating the vitamin pushers at all. That has become another drug dealing clan pushing another type of chemicals. Our body does not recognize these chemicals as nutrition. It does nothing at best and passes through or does damage at worst.
If you want the real “high” than you will find it only in natural clean unprocessed food.
Have you ate anything like that today?
Sorry, Zer0, can’t agree with that. There is a very clear correlation between high LDL levels and heart attacks. There’s really no disputing that as there’s a wealth of information to support it including those who lower LDL levels avoid heart attacks. I was not making a case that diet didn’t influence health that the “healing positive energy” business didn’t do him any good.
But I do agree that genetic composition plays a huge role in lifespan. But there’s no getting around the historical fact that as nutrition has improved, so has lifespan.
JQP, I’m really sorry about your confidence in the “wealth of information” that supports the link between LDL and heart attacks. Just like many well meaning doctors you too get your “truth” from the 10 o’clock news or the magazine article titles. I would have expected you to have at least some doubt. Have you yourself read a research study, or researched to see who did the research and who was it funded by?
I am a Senior Development Engineer at a Research and Development company and know first hand how things work. Any study can be run in any way to show any desirable outcome. Then those findings can be worded in a way to lead you to believe what they want you to believe. They can do “magic” with numbers and percentages. Then a reporter will get a hold of the research findings and without understanding what they are reading will publish a small fraction of the research or just a paragraph declaring that the research has validated something. And this is how the “wealth of information” is piled.
One of the most valuable classes I took in collage was Critical Thinking. What I got from that class was more important than all the formulas and theorems that I have long forgotten. If you can’t read in between the lines then you are doing a disservice to yourself and just feeding the propaganda machine.
Dave,
You are driving yourself crazy by searching for answers in a boundless Universe you cannot study in its entirety in one lifetime. The progresses made by science are astounding, as are the progresses made by spiritual enlightenment. I cant say that Dyer has done any wrong, but merely tried to promote manifest destiny and self control. I too am against dogma, and believe it can only lead to, well, war. Quantum Physics is a detail oriented science but you must indulge in the fact that every theory in Quantum Physics is man made, therefore subject to a margin of error. We watch gravity act as a force but cannot see it, just as people believe in miracles they cannot see. You only see the result instead of the action. I think “energy” is used in a more verbal sense than scientific. But i applaud the civil debate on this board, and believe we can all learn from each other, and come to an understanding that we all share the same elements, energy, and breath needed to sustain life. peace.
What progress has “spiritual enlightenment” made? Let’s look at 3 examples: it didn’t work for Dyer because he wound up with a heart attack right in the middle of the statistical age group–just like anyone else. And Chopra wound up suing an employee for $36 million dollars. (I’m sure it was a spiritual suit, and not about the money.) And Ram Dass, for all the years in the “healing positive energy,” is now in a wheelchair from a stroke at a way too young an age. Again, just like anyone else.
The “spiritually enlightened” tend to frequently suggest: “understand before you criticize.” Well, I suggest they do the same. Get a full education in quantum mechanics and physics before you criticize. Why is gravity a substantiation of the “miracles” people claim to see? One big difference is everyone experiences gravity whether they believe in it or not. (Completely suspend your belief in gravity and jump off a building and you’ll see what I mean.) But “miracles” seem to only emanate from a certain few individuals. Then the charge that others can’t see them because they do not “believe.” Nonsense. Because you can’t see gravity or wind or other features not visible to the eye, does not mean you cannot see its effects. And, moreover, it is not contingent on belief.
Our world will drastically improve once the remaining vestiges of religion and superstition are squashed. You want to end wars and fighting? Then quit pushing the idea that you understand the will of an invisible man and unsubstantiated unprovable ideas. As long as there are people believing in that throwing salt over your shoulder improves your circumstances, then we will get nowhere.
Before I get the argument back about Dyer’s non-violent ways, let me summarize precisely what I’m saying: Spirituality (all of it) is not the solution to our problems, it is the cause. Dyer is no better than any Christian missionary.
PASCHAL’S WAGER:
EITHER God exists or he doesn’t.
Which alternative will you wager on?
You can’t avoid choosing one or the other;
you have embarked on the wager already.
A refusal to choose carries the same result
as choosing that God does not exist.
What if you choose to bet that God exists?
If you win, you win everything;
if you lose, you lose nothing.
Make a bet that God exists.”
Well, if I choose that God exists, then I have taken a position in the historically endless violent struggle of interpreting the will of that God. Now I have to have an interpretation of that God because it is not enough to simply say he exists. I will also have to have a significance to me and that God otherwise this is no point in conjuring him up in the first place. Not to mention wasting my life believing in miracles that never happen, or men with tricky magical ribs, or that I will be healing through the “power of positive thinking.”
So, with all due respect to Pascal, I do lose something: a place outside the great struggle and time.
Dave Bacon’s Pascal Wager:
1. Either God exists or God does not exist.
2a. If you believe in God, then you go to hell.
2b. If you do not believe in God, you go to heaven.
So you should….?
For completeness…
Pascal’s triangle
1
11
121
1331
14641
15101051
A Pascal program
program HelloWorld(output);
begin
writeln(‘Hello, World!’)
end.
We all have a view…I feel that if you look at all civilizations each of them had / have a set of “Golden rules”.. We can argue all our lives about which belief system is the right one…If they are based on love and not fear..They are true…
Can you ever be wrong if your actions are based in love…?
I wish all of us could stop looking for what is wrong with the other…
Robert Cohee
OK I’ll get in on the wager too, although I think it is a childish wager. How old was this guy Paschal when he came up with this wager? It shows what a limited mind he had and how brain washed he was.
“If you win, you win everything”? What is he talking about? I don’t know of any God believing (more like fearing) person who has “won” or has anything more than a non believer has. Now if there is God then all of the believers who have wagered that God exists (otherwise they would not be believers) would have “everything” material and spiritual. The wager itself implies that the God who’s existence we have to wager on is a rewarding/punishing God. Since the believers have not been rewarded or the nonbelievers punished, then this God does not exist. If anyone thinks that this is not so they should show some examples of how a belier was better off than a nonbeliever ONLY because they believed in God’s existence and nothing else and vise versa.
Would anyone argue that all the other nonhuman inhabitants of this planet who don’t have a concept of God, or can’t choose on either side of this wager and therefore choose that God does not exist by default, have anything less than the so called “true believers”?
I think man came up with the concept of God because there was a need for it to deal with the unknown. It fills a different need for different people. It has become an instrument and an excuse for some, and a psychological crutch for others.
Unless mankind evolves to a point that the need for it disappears, there will always be the concept of God and the believers of the concept.
Personally I don’t have a problem with anyone believing in whatever they want to believe as long as they don’t try to make me a part of it.
If they try to force God on me I may turn into the Devil and take them to Hell with me 🙂
Well, yes you can be wrong if your actions are based on love. That is my point about the independence of intention and action. If your intention is good but the resulting action is wrong, which trumps? You can believe you’re helping someone but that help could very well be unintentionally hurting. You have to objectively look at the action and divorce it from emotion. Make sure what you do really helps, not what you think helps. I rather give a poor person a house to live in and be completely indifferent to them emotionally than love them and give them nothing kind words. And, no, loving and giving shelter does not make the action any better or worse. It’s about the action, not the intention.
By the way, Dr. House is my hero.
My husband and his brother LOVE Wayne Dyer’s stuff, but as I had never heard of him before last year, I decided to read some of his stuff and look him up on the net to see what’s out there on him as a person and about his teachings. This is a pretty interesting site in that regard.
I used to be a Christian – for nearly 50 years. And not just your average name-only Christian. I walked the talk. I was the queen of involved in every church activity and study I could do. But more importantly, I was and still am a truth-seeker, and unlike most people I’ve known, and apparently many on this blog site, I am willing to pursue it regardless of the cost. Therefore, it has “cost” me my religion, a lot of “friends”, and some of my family, but gained me great freedom. Freedom from the slavery of dogma and the accompanying guilt. (Sorry, folks, that forgiveness thing doesn’t really cut it. There’s still guilt when you have to live with the consequences of your stupid actions and decisions.) And by the way, if Jesus died for ALL my sins, how come I still have to pay my traffic tickets. You know, the judge just didn’t buy the argument that I didn’t have to pay, since Jesus had died and paid the price for all my sins. Hmmm. Seems we’re still under a sacrificial system, eh?
To be fair to you all, I’m out here in the sticks and only have dial-up, so this sort of thing takes a lot of my precious time. (We farm – summer is really busy, but right now it’s too hot to work outside, so, here I am frittering away some of that time on this blog.) I say this only by way of explanation as to why I haven’t read every single entry on this site – only about the first 20, and then skimmed after that. I’m noticing, however, this great debate over various religious/philosophical views and I’m very amused, because almost all of you, regardless of whether you’re Christian or not, actually assume that Jesus really existed, despite the fact that no contemporary historian of his supposed time has recorded the existance of a miracle-working god/man. Sorry folks, you can’t claim the ones referring to “Christ” or “Chrestos”. Those are sungod dieties. And you can’t go to Josephus, either. Number one: he’s NOT a contemporary, so his accounts are hearsay evidence. Number two: the earliest documents of his work contain NO entries about Jesus by any name, making the later copies clearly a forgery. (Enter the Roman Catholic Church and/or it’s predecessors.) And, where did the name, Jesus, come from since the letter “j” didn’t even exist until the 15th century? Iesus, as in “Son of Zeus”?
If any of you Christians out there are wondering how I could abandon a previously very strong faith in all this, what I’ve just sited should give you a clue. I still love truth above all else. What I discovered when I started investigating church/Christian history was mostly lies. If I was to remain true to myself – who I am as a person – then I could camp there no longer. It’s really pretty simple.
Now, this latest bet about God has a couple of major flaws, (other than the name, “God” which has been used for nearly EVERY supreme sungod deity, in one linguistic form or another.) It assumes that there really is a heaven and a hell. Study your myths, people. Heaven and Hell, in the modern understandings, are inventions of the Roman Catholic Church. They existed in the minds of the ancients in slightly different forms, but were still part of their myths. Doesn’t it seem a little odd to you that the ancient Egyptians’ god, Horus, also called the “Son of God” “sun of Righteousness” “Lamb of God” “The Light”, etc. is exactly like Jesus? From the angelic announcement, impregnation by the “Holy Spirit”, virgin birth, adoration of magi, to the miracles, the mode of death, the 3-day burial time and resurrection – except for the time period, it’s identical. And that religion predates Christianity by 1,000’s of years. (BTW, most of you Christians out there have a serious math problem. Friday evening to Sunday Morning is NOT three days and three nights, not matter how you cut it. See: Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 12:39 & 40)
In fact, the entire New Testament is of questionable origin and authority, since the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John are clearly re-makes of Mark. And who the heck is Mark? That’s not even a Hebrew name. And the disciples? Who are James and John? (Remember, no “j’s” until the 15th century.) No one really knows who Mark actually is. And Paul was a Gnostic, so there goes the rest of the NT. All but one of the books of the NT clearly states that they are letters. Just letters, people. One guy writing to someone else. Additionally, the Old Testament authors are questionable. The story of Moses exists in time periods long before his supposed existance.
So, since I prefer NOT to believe in myths and esoteric stuff that can’t be proven or quantified, because it’s basically man’s vain imagination, all I’m left with is science. But now I have another problem, because too many scientists are religious, and I’m not talking about the creationists. You evolutionists out there are just as religious as the Christians you ridicule. You base your ridiculous theory (and it is still JUST A THEORY!) on flimsy evidence and the emotional need to deny a higher being. What’s more, you also state your dogma as though it were fact. Disproving one thing (eg. the Bible) doesn’t automatically prove your crap, either. So, I don’t see you guys as any better than the Pope and his minions. You haven’t proven a thing except that you’re just as enamored with religion and religious debates as those who engage you. I think you’re both wrong.
What I do see, scientifically, is that there is incredible order. The mathematical odds of that ocurring out of disorder are staggering. Also, from my limited understanding of physics, the evolutionary theory flies in the face of well established laws, ie., order does not evolve from chaos, but rather evolves TOWARD chaos. Yet, order seems to prevail, despite the chaotic actions of humans, so I can’t go with atheism. It looks to me like there is ample scientific evidence for intelligent design (just look at DNA, for Pete’s sake,) and evidence that that designer is a continuing stabilizing force.
There’s also science to back up many of what are referred to as the Mosaic laws (despite the fact that Hammurabi and Ur had them far earlier than “Moses”.) There are definite consequences for breaking some of them, that are natural and detrimental. ie. Sex with animals results in disease and death. And as nature seems to make every effort to continue life, it seems to me that death and disease are counter to our true nature, or at least that death BY disease is counter to our true nature. Otherwise, why do we have this compulsion to overcome it regardless of our religious or philosophical bent? These consequences are naturally avoidable by simply abstaining from the prohibited behavior. Animals don’t naturally cross breed, and mutations don’t reproduce. Cross bred animals, even close in species (ie, donkey with horse) are sterile and can’t reproduce. So, there seems to me a natural boundary there, that even animals understand. Also, if I step off a building, I will fall to my probable death. So I do see natural boundaries to our behaviors. Now, if one believes that death is the natural state rather than life, then, of course they would have no boudaries, but as humans, we can’t deny a certain level of conscience. We somehow intinctively know that some things are wrong and we instinctively are resistant to death. We need myths and philosophies to enable us to be comfortable with it. Of all the “aminals” on earth, humans are the only ones with these esoteric traits of abstract thought. I can’t see that as a product of evolution.
I can even see logic in some of the social (Levitical) laws. I have to ask myself, “Are we as a society, better off for tolerating adultery, murder, theft, etc.?” I don’t think so. Plus, generally speaking, our conscienses tell us these are wrong behaviors. We don’t need some church telling us that shooting up a hundred or so kids in a school is wrong. I also notice there is no prison system in the Levitical laws or even Hammurabi’s code. There is restitution for loss, fines as punishment, and death. The closest to prison are the cities of refuge for those who accidentally kill someone. So, it’s a form of house arrest if the offending party wants to remain alive, although that is still their choice. The one guilty of what we would call manslaughter, is not bond to go there. He/she could just as easily take their chances where they are, that the family of the one who they accidentallly killed won’t in turn kill them.
I have to agree with something I heard the other day: “I don’t know who God is, but I sure know who He isn’t.” So, I wouldn’t take any bet on God per se, although I am convinced of a higher intelligence of an electrical nature, because everything bears his/it’s thumbprint of electricity, so to speak.
You can’t go to any one source for truth, because everybody has some of it – some more than others. There can be no lie unless there is truth, because lies are perversions of truth. The problem is that both Eastern and Western thought is so saturated with mythology, it’s darn near impossible to sort out where the truth is.
So, back on topic. Does Dyer have some truth? Yes. But who the hell knows what part of what he’s teaching really is truth? If the energy he’s talking about is really electricity (because everything has an electrical quality/thumb print, both so-called matter and thought,) then there is some shread of truth to what he’s saying. On the other hand, electricity can be interferred with, as all of us have experienced. So, maybe you can only aim your “energy” in some direction, but that’s no guarantee that you’ll reach the destination or that you’ll get there without a “power outage” somewhere along the line. You might even end up somewhere you never dreamed of. The fact is, anyone with a strong desire for something will tend to seek out the things/people/avenues that will get them what they want. There’s no great mystery to that. And if that is what Dyer is really saying, then why are some of you people spending money on his books and speeches? GEEZ! Think for yourself for a change!
My husband and his brother swear by “The Power of Intention”, bless their silly little hearts, but there’s a lot in there that is conveniently unquantifiable. Also, you can’t underestimate the power of perception. If someone tells me that I will be happier and more content if I think a certain way, and if that is really my ultimate goal in life, then I will find a way to eventually perceive that I have indeed arrived at my happy and content place. And who can prove me wrong? I BELIEVE I am happy and content! See? Unquantifiable. The fact that many people have been “helped” by Dyer and by any number of religions around the world only means that they have found the perception (dillusion?) that they are comfortable with. It also means that there are an aweful lot of people out there who want someone else to tell them how to think. Not that there aren’t useful guides, but common, people, nobody has all the answers and few people even have most of them. You just have to figure it out on your own. Quit being so damn lazy! I can say this, because, as a former Christian, that’s where I was, too – happy and content, for the most part, living in my myth of choice, convinced I had at least most of the truth. Then my boat got rocked by irrefutable facts and the myth just wasn’t good enough anymore.
Dave, this has been a very long-winded way of saying that I think I probably agree with you more than I agree with your critics, but there’s still truth out there to be discovered. Maybe we’ll be fortunate enough to find it.
Robert,
I think “right” and “wrong” are very subjective concepts.
What may be right for you may be wrong for me.
And, yes you can be wrong (have undesirable results) even if your actions are based in love.
I don’t feel that we are “looking for what is wrong with the other…”. At least I don’t approach this forum that way. Rather, we express our viewpoints and point each other in directions that we have not explored yet, so we can learn from each other and grow wiser together. Of course the quality of education that we get depends on us, the participants. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we welcome anyone who has something to say that can benefit anyone or everyone. The only prerequisite is that they put some thought behind their input and keep an open mind.
JohnQ – Are you a truth-seeker at all? How can Dr. House be your hero? He’s the fictional propoganda machine for one of the biggest lies of all time, and all that in the name of science. It’s known as allopathic medicine – based on Voo Doo and the desire to profit from other people’s miseries.
ZeroO
So, if someone brutally kills your little daughter (if you have/had one,) but believes it’s the right thing to do, you’d be okay with that? Isn’t leaving all right and wrong concepts up the individual a formula for chaos and anarchy?
Jodee,
WOW, where were you all this time?
You brought an electric storm with you. I was losing hope already. Happy to see that there are still free thinkers out there. I am especially impressed with your transformation from hard core religion to a free and independent thinker.
Completely agree with you on all your points. Thank you for your great input.
I would suggest that you research the info on this site with an open mind (which you already have):
http://www.cheniere.org/
It will tie some of the loose ends.
Don’t stop writing.
Jodee,
I have a 18 month old daughter now. If someone hurt my daughter believing that it was the right thing to do, would live long enough to find out what Hell is like on earth. I’m not religious and I don’t believe in Heaven and Hell but I have a very powerful imagination. Even if he doesn’t believe in Hell I’ll make a believer out of him. When it comes to my loved ones, I am the judge, the jury, and the executioner.
But I don’t see the point of your argument (other than waking the beast within me).
For him it was the right thing to do, for me, it was the wrong thing that he did. It just proves my point that right and wrong are subjective.
What I do to him would be wrong from his perspective but right from mine.
Maybe it’s a formula for chaos and anarchy, but we are not discussing what we as a society agree as to what we want to consider right and wrong and putting it on paper as laws and abiding by them.
We are just talking about the concepts of right and wrong as they relate to us individually.
ZeroO
You actually brought out more of the point I was making. There is no true individuality in the larger sense. What we do as individuals, what we believe, the decisions we make based on what we believe often become public and often a public problem very quickly. That is, they effect some other individual(s) and perhaps in ways that weren’t considered or intended.
My former husband felt it was right for him to sleep around. He brought home a nice little “present” for me which I was plagued with for nearly 10 years. Knowing the nature of this little “present”, I’m sure I’m not the only one who was adversely effected by his “private” acts.
I don’t think the lines of right and wrong are all that subjective or blurred when it comes to doing harm to someone else or to what is theirs. Outside of that scope, I would agree with you, that individual non-consequential (to others) choices of what’s right and wrong are subjective. Is it wrong for me to go to a movie? Of course not – unless that means I’m leaving my 6 mo. old infant (hypothetically speaking) at home alone or in the care of someone I know to be a child molester.
I see a huge difference between bountries and free choices. When natural boundaries are crossed, and I believe murder is one of those natural boudaries, for the reasons I sited in my original posting, there are unpleasent consequences. The very fact that this scenario awoke the “beast in you,” more or less proves my point. You instinctively are protective of your own offspring, as well you should be. The fact that some people aren’t doesn’t make them right. I’m sure that for the same reasons you got your hackles up over the prospect of your own daughter being victimized, you probably get equally disturbed when it actually happens to other children. I don’t get the impression you’d be sitting there listening to the news and thinking to yourself, “Well, that guy must have a good reason to do that to that little kid.” (Assuming a “good reason” would make it right for him.)
Frankly, your excercise of your own righteous anger (and I do believe it would be righteous) would be right for a whole lot more people than just you. It would be right for all the other little kids he didn’t get a chance to do the same thing to.
What I see is that we humans, by and large, inherently have a sense of good and evil and when push comes to shove, those lines aren’t all that fuzzy. At the same time, we also seem, overall, to have a sense that evil should be eliminated and good should prosper.
As far as the acts of love always or even often being the right thing, I have found that most of the time, people (not you,) who make that argument are really justifying selfishness or some self-serving attitude – the meddling mother-in-law. She meddles because she “cares”. (And I’m sure she thinks that the right thing to do, too.) No. She meddles because she’s a selfish control freak. I’m not talking suggestions or solicited advise, I’m talking real meddling manipulation. And in my book, stuff like that is not love. But, that’s just me.
A lot of good points here, Jodee. I’ll respond when I get a chance. Good input, I agree.
Jodee, regarding your question about House, the character is simply an example of the separation of intention and action. That’s all. It demonstrates that social good can come from self-interest. It had nothing to with the practice of medicine. It was to punctuate the previous post.
We have some common ground, but we do diverge on allopathic medicine. Simply put, it’s got the best track record of any other “voo-doo” remedies you can present. What has proven more effective? Homeopathy? The medicine that has no medicine?
One other point, Jodee, where is evolution substantiated by the flaws in Christian theology? That is to say, I know of no one who claims evolution is true because Christianity is wrong. I have my own doubts about evolution–that in no way steers me towards the spiritual or supernatural–but it is, after all, based on discovery and evidence and not mythology. There are holes, to be sure, but it seems that Christian mostly takes the opportunity to proclaim their position in the face of the holes in evolutionary theory not the other way around.
Also, you’ll have to explain “electricity thumb print” to me. I have no idea what you mean by that.
JQP,
I think Jodee means that electricity is at the root of all other fields and forces in nature, including matter, gravity, energy, life, and thought.
But let’s get her explanation, the above is just my interpretation.
Electricity is the root of gravity? The electro-gravity thing, I suppose. Oh, man. Years ago there was an author claiming that gravity was the effect of continuously expanding matter. He claimed that the universe is growing (not to be confused with an expanding universe) and that it is not the ball falling downwards but the ground swelling upwards that causes it to meet the ground. (I believe this was pretty well discredited.)
You live long enough and you eventually hear everything. Thank God science eventually weeds out every crackpot theory.
Dr. Bacon, I’m glad to see your search for a stable qubit is also going to create world peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsvEkPNitdQ&mode=related&search=
I guess the residual effects of the psychedelic sixties lives on.
John Q Public
Actually that is the perfect handle for you, because I fear that you represent the average unthinking close-minded American today. Sorry. I tried my best to be polite, but people like me suffer from the attitudes of people like you, because you seem to be the people who get autocrats and fascists elected to public office and then the rest of us suffer for it. (See, ZerO? No individuals. All parts of a whole and all the parts are connected.)
But for the sake of some of the others out there who might actually be buying what you’re saying, I’ll have a go at your comments.
First of all, lets take the one about Dr. House. There is literally NO truth in ANY of what you said. Heretofore, I thought it was impossible for someone to be totally wrong, but I guess I was mistaken. Of course, that’s just my opinion based on facts and here they are:
In 2000, if memory serves, Dr. Starfield did an extensive study on the leading causes of death in the US. Guess who came up #1 (or three, depending on who is spinning the results)? That would be the somewhat less than the illustrious altruistic institution known as allopathic medicine. 225,400 people, on the average, die every year as a result of doctor/medical error, unnecessary surgery, uninformed practices/procedures, iatrogenic infections (doctor and hospital caused), and drug interactions. That’s just over 75 occurrances the size of Twin Towers 911 in ’01. Want the whole story, look it up, people. It’s on the web.
JQP, your incredible ignorance is showing. When I said allopathic medicine is reworked VooDoo, I wasn’t just being euphamistic. It really is just reworked VooDoo. VooDoo is based on the notion that if one is sick, it is the result of an evil spirit. To rid oneself of the evil spirit, one must ingest or in some other way absorb poison in order to kill that evil spirit and regain health. I’d actually wager that Voo Doo has probably killed fewer people than the allopathy that is based on it. Don’t see the connection? Here goes: Allopathy assumes that if one is sick it is the result of a “germ” (evil spirit substitute). The germ theory is again, just that – an unproven THEORY!!! Never mind that the same supposed pathogens can be present in the same person at a different time and NOT make them sick, or that it can be present in another person who NEVER gets sick because of it. Nonetheless, the priests of allopathy (doctors) prescribe their poison (drugs) to kill the evil spirit (“germ”) or to mask it’s symptoms until your body, despite the fact that it has just been poisoned, manages to heal itself. Have you seen the size of the PDR? Get a clue! ALL DRUGS HAVE SIDE EFFECTS. Why? Because all drugs, whether over the counter, prescribed, or illegal, trap plasma proteins. Where ever those proteins become trapped, you have a side effect. That’s why there can be such a range of side effects. Now, connect the dots, here. Death, disease, and pain CANNOT be present, CANNOT HAPPEN UNLESS there are trapped plasma proteins. Of course, drugs are not the only substances that cause plasma proteins to become trapped, but ALL drugs do. And by the way, your body doesn’t know the difference between legal and illegal drugs. Ponder that the next time you see a drug ad apprearing in the same program hour with a public service ad telling you in some form, to “Say NO to drugs.”
Now comes the really interesting part – the part you, the average JQP does’t get. Everything has an electric property, signature, frequency. So, those drugs you take do, too. Unfortunately, their frequency disturbs the natural frequencies in your body which is what causes those proteins to become trapped and which in turn POISONS YOU!!!! Drug companies and doctors actually know this stuff, but they don’t tell you, because as long as they can only treat you and not actually restore your health to you, they can make a killing! How do you not see the problem here?
Homeopathy works (I know, because I’ve used it for over 20 years) precisely because it DOESN”T have any actual “medicine” in it. It only carries the electrical frequency of the herb from which it was originally taken. So, your body recognizes the frequency and responds accordingly, producing healing, because the immune system has been stimulated naturally and that has resulted in self-healing. If you’ve tried it, JQP, and it didn’t “work” for you, there are a number of explanations for that, none of which fit within your very limited perameters. #1 – since homeopathy works WITH your immune system (instead of against it!) if your immune system has already been shut down by toxins (eg. drugs), it will be unable to respond or at least respond in a way that you would recognize. #2 If you’re expecting an instantaneous resolution to your health challenge, you’re not going to get it either way. Drugs mask symptoms, so you’ve still got the problem. And it didn’t develop overnight, so it’s not going to go away overnight, either.
So, now what do we have with allopathy? Oh NO! Another RELIGION!!!!! not based on proven science, but on faith in a theory that says you’ve got a germ that has to be killed. HHmmmm. Sounds a lot like, “You’ve got some heretical ideas that need to be killed.” The doctor tries to kill the germ with toxins and if that doesn’t work, he cuts it out of you. If that still doesn’t work, he tries to burn it out of you. The priest tries to kill it with holy water, communion, “Bible Study”, and prayer, and if that doesn’t work, he cuts you out with excommunication. If that doesn’t work, he burns you at the stake. (Inquisition, anyone?) Oh, wait. They don’t do that anymore. They just send you to hell so you can burn there.
Doctors dress in white coats (denoting purity?) while they have you take off your clothes. That way you feel small and intimidated in their presence, as they surely have the authority of the AMA behind them. Priests dress in white robes and stand in high places while you sit below them in pews or chairs. That way you feel intimidated in their presence as they surely must have the authority of God behind them.
Do you really think you’re going to get the truth from either of them, when they can make so much money off of people like you with blind faith in them, their “magic potions”, and “spells”.
So, you see, selfish motivations, such as Dr. House’s, don’t really result in good for others. They result in profits for the medical establishments (churches/cathedrals), and sickness and death (slavery/guilt) for their victims (parishoners). All this while being protected by the Big Pharma Cartels. Oh, but wait. JQP is not the least bit interested in the truth. You’ve made that abunantly clear from your posted comments. I’ll bet, you’re probably on at least 4-6 meds yourself. And while I certainly wouldn’t deny you your views or the freedom to express them, I am dismayed that you do, in fact, probably represent a drug dependant public, who is so toxic they couldn’t think for themselves if they wanted to.
Enter, Dr. Dyer to save you from yourself. GEEZ!!!! ZerO, I think it’s just you and me….and I’m not sure about you… LOL Just kidding.
P.S. to JQP: go to rationalresponders.com and there you will find Bible naysayers (and they’re right about that) who then cling to evolution and atheism as fact; unwilling to examine it with the same critical eye with which they examine the Bible. The insinuation there is that if the Bible is fiction, then evolution is fact, as if there could only be two possibilities.
We could only hope that science would weed out all the crackpots, except that the scientific community has already been infiltrated by religious zealots, so, I don’t think we can count on that either.
Jodee, I’m falling in love with you 🙂
You made my day today.
You speak my mind better than I do. I wish I could express myself the way you do, but I try as much as I can.
Looks like it’s just you and me that don’t have blinders on. But that is enough to start a revolution. We are a few but we have the universe on our side because we understand it better.
So you have used homeopathy. I have never tried it. I usually just eat raw good quality food and let my body heal itself. I haven’t used any “medicine” for many years (and I’m still alive JQP). But the next time I am under attack I will ask for your advice Jodee on what to do homeopathy wise.
Have a fantastic weekend.
We’ll continue next week.
Back to the whole Wayne Dyer thing …
Suppose we look forward ten thousand years – what will be true? What will be the condition of life as we know it?
The religious literalists might predict something completely supernatural will occur – something already written (predetermined?) in the Bible’s apocalypse for example?
The positive thinkers might assert that we influence it by our intents, and that good intentions are better than bad.
The scientists might predict that whatever happens, at least has to obey the laws of physics. The laws that are testable and repeatable regardless of the belief of the observer – not the quasi-spiritual energy quantum mumbo-jumbo.
What will *actually happen* as the universe marches merrily along without a whole lot of regard for what one tiny little population of sentient beings might believe?
1) Something that still obeys the laws of physics.
2) What humanity as a whole acts toward, with accountability. This includes:
*Direction or intent. This is what I like so much about Wayne Dyer – it’s up to us to imagine our direction, to focus on it, and to desire what is good (using religion or not). This is a mental and spiritual process.
*Action. Beyond intent, it is real physical WORK. This includes not just the push to move forward, but the accountability of feedback (or the feedback of accountability). Wayne Dyer’s philosophies, or anyone else’s MEAN NOTHING without the step of accountability. This is what bugs me about the spiritual non-physical bias not just of Wayne Dyer but that ilk generally. Seems like WD covers this base (barely) by saying things like “if you want it bad enough” meaning “you’re willing to work for it.”
Intent doesn’t yield outcomes – accountability does. A person’s values aren’t defined so much by their desires (is this opposing WD now?) as they are defined by what a person holds themselves accountable to. Mankind as a whole will achieve no better. Wayne Dyers of the world encourage us to extend our vision of what is achievable and to participate. I wish that they would add to their message a more realistic and factual method of realizing accountability.
Just trying to re-stir the pot :^)
Homeopathy has been debunked as a con job so many times it’s not really a debate anymore. There’s just no credible support in your corner on this one. (Personal experience is not credible peer critique.) To believe in it you have to believe water has memory because it is diluted to such a degree that the “curing” ingredient (which if you list what some are, including that which killed Socrates, your hair should stand on end) is gone. Homeopathists response? The water retains a “memory” of the ingredient.
For example,to make a 10X solution the dilution process is carried out ten times, each time taking one tenth of the mixture and diluting it. At each level, the mixture is “succussed,†which means hitting the container (seriously??) in a certain fashion. So, a 10X “succssion” means the active ingredient is reduced to a factor of one molecule in every 10X29 molecules. That means there is no more active ingredient! And, again, supporters say this is because the water “remembers” the molecular structure of the ingredient. That has no basis in physical law.
So, this is your position?
Actually, it is 10^29. Which roughly one molecule per all in the entire universe.
And, no, I’m not on any meds. I just don’t have anything wrong with my health at this time. Your corporate conspiracy theories are just silly and have nothing to do with provable truth. I’m sorry.
(Why do some simply have to go ad hominem in a debate? It would be a relief to keep it academic and not personal.)
Social good from self-interest. This is Adam Smith’s remark and point in The Wealth of Nations. You see it all around you every day: you probably didn’t build your house, but one was built out of self-interest (i.e., profit) and provided you a benefit (i.e., social good). You probably don’t make your own clothes, but that self-interest benefits you. You probably didn’t etch your PC board on your computer, but you benefit from someone else’s self-interest. And so on. There were several communes in the seventies that were built on intentional goodwill and not profit motive. They all failed. The profit motive has created more social good to man than any other. You see its rapid growth in China and India. Result? Poverty levels being slashed in large swaths. People don’t need kind thoughts, they need jobs. Nothing lifts poverty levels like a strong economy. Evidence is in such abundance I’m not sure how anyone can argue with it.
Zer0, you appear to be emotionally worked up. It’s just a volley of ideas, no emotion necessary.
Toddmeister, I’m mulling over your comments. Not sure what you’re driving at, yet. (It’s me not getting it, not you.)
JQP, your ignorance is still showing as you still don’t understand the electrical nature of everything around you. Do you believe the particle theory, too? Now there’s a snipe hunt if ever there was one!
And homeopathy has been debunked by whom exactly? The religious medical high priests? But, of course! For them, homeopathy is herecy. It heals, keeps healthy, and cuts into their profits. And the fact that homeopathy actually does work has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it worked not just for me, but for countless others. It’s science is well documented for those who wish to educate themselves rather than being spoonfed by people who claim to be authorities just because they have letters after their names. It’s all electrical, and I don’t know what your scholarship is, but it appears to be limited to your myth of choice. Homeopathy was not debunked, as you say, 100’s of years ago. What it was was overcome by the profitiering allopathic physicians who organized and formed the AMA – the collective god almighty. They did this because their popularity was waning. Why? because their track record, even back then was horendous. (There must have been a higher population of thinking individuals then, too; back when good sense was common.) Homeopaths, to their partial undoing, did not organize into a collective, as they were not motivated by greed and power, but only by the simple desire to heal. Most had other occupations by which they earned a living, and willingly educated those they “treated” to enable them to help themselves. Likewise with most herbalists. The AMA would like to debunk that, too, but there’s that pesky 3000 years of research, experimentation, and documentation in China during the Chen Dynasty.
Ironically, it’s the allopaths, who keep people sick and dying, that have kept herbalists and homeopaths in business. All you have to do is compare the track records. Hhmmm. People getting cured of “incurable” diseases vs. people dying from the treatments for those incurable diseases. The AMA’s definition of “incurable” is any disease for which they have not found a poison that will only mask symptoms until the body heals itself. (Explains why there are so many “incurable” diseases – allopathy runs contrary to the very nature and makeup of human physiology.) That 225,400 deaths at the hands of allopathic medicine doesn’t even count the 553,091 deaths from cancer and 710,760 deaths from heart disease, both of which they refuse to cure and opt instead to treat. (The Cure for All Diseases/The Cure for All Cancers/The Cure for ALL Advanced Cancers; Hulda Clark, PhD, ND. The China Study; Campbell and Campbell, PhD. – if you’re really interested in scientific documentation.) It’s just that 225,400 is all the AMA will admit to at this point. And by the way, these figures come from an allopath.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to follow the money. While capitolism has its definite upside, the downside is when it turns to avarice and an over-developed sense of greed in the few and the willingness by the rest to become slaves to them, so long as it doesn’t hit them in the wallet too badly.
You, like most statistitions, measure poverty in terms of monetary income. But that’s not an accurate measure. The value of any currency is only relative to what backs it up and how much FAITH the general public has in it. It is of no intrinsic value, therefore, at any given time, the world bankers, who control just about everyone’s currency, can manipulate economies worldwide. (Great Depression anyone?) The truly wealthy person is the one who can remain solvent and maintain a livelihood regardless of what the monetary markets do. And there are damn few people like that. That “poor” farmer with his fields and livestock who can feed himself and his family without depending on unstable currency is far more wealthy than the city-dwellers of China and India who have been convinced that earning a good living equates to lots of “money”. So, it would behove them to take some of that money, while it still has perceived value, and invest in real wealth – land and things they can use to sustain life. Oh, but wait. In China, they’re not allowed to do that. They have to get PERMITS to have a dwelling in any particular place and they don’t get to own REAL property. So, unfortunately, the people are being lulled into a false sense of prosperity because now they can afford “stuff” – gismos, gadgets – and they can afford to buy food from those that the Chinese government will allow to be farmers. Hmmm. Seems we’re not too far from that here in the good ol’ USA.
So, if your idea of a strong economy is monetarily-based, then I think you’ve bought into yet another religion, because you’re apparently not a student of history. True poverty is the result of ignorance, not the lack of self-serving capitolists.
Speaking of whom, (and lest we appear to be fetching too far afield,) enter, once again, Dr. Dyer. Hmmm. A “workshop” in Maui. That’s not going to be cheap!
Hey, Toddmeister! You almost sounded coherent there. You’ve impressed JQP, though. Do you think Star Wars is real?
Wasn’t Jodee the name of the demon in Amityville?
Michael’sword, thank you SOOOO much for elevating the intellegence level of this cyber conversation! Good luck to you and yours in the next fascist regime. Your wit will no doubt serve you well in the food lines.
Jodee:
Just an innocent observation on the sad descent of this exchange into personal insult and nastiness. I recommend you re-read the entire conversation and note that although the opinions have been diverse and frequently vigorous, even zealous, they were always, until recently, at least relatively civil.
P.S. – It’s capitAlist.
Thank you for calling me ignorant. I guess if someone doesn’t agree with you they are ignorant. (Note that I did not call you silly, but only the theory that you adopted.) I don’t understand the “electrical nature of everything around us?” Not sure what you’re basing that on. I’m a statistician from a simple extrapolation? Not sure why you decided to just lump me up with that group, but you entitled to your own conjecture. But you really are arguing that water has molecular memory and that is simply not supported in physics. I hope that came across.
I’m sorry, but you didn’t get the profit argument at all. It did not measure poverty alleviation in monetary terms. You jumped to that conclusion. I did not state specifically what the measurement was, I only stated what the basis of an improved quality of life was, not how it was measured.
We live longer and safer than anyone has in history. There are so many centurions alive today that science no longer studies them—they now study those over 110 years old because that is the new anomaly, 100 used to be that anomaly. So, the measurement is live span and living conditions free of disease. This just happens to go hand-in-hand with economic development. You cannot show a correlation between the sudden improvement in life span, reduced disease (malaria, typhus, yellow fervor, et cetera) and homeopathy, for instance. How do you explain that we now live so long, infant mortality rates are so low since the 20th century, and we live so disease free compared to our counterparts in , say, 500 A.D.? What caused this turn of events in your opinion?
One other comment, Jodee, I did not express being “impressed” by toddmeister’s comment. I simply said I wasn’t sure what he was saying and the source of confusion was on my part at the moment. Nothing about that says I was “impressed.” Suggestion: please avoid the ad hominem statements. I don’t mind volleying ideas with you and I certainly don’t mind attacking ideas (in fact, I think that is a good thing), but attacking the person behind them isn’t helpful and detracts.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/9594.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,847758,00.html
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1SKFljGfV70J:www.physoc.org/publications/pn/issuepdf/65/3.pdf+homeopathy+debunking&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us
http://www.gordonresearch.com/answers/abc_news_20-20_debunks_homeopathy.html
“Is Homeopathy Quackery? by Mahlon W. Wagner, Ph.D.
In the United States, we have a motto: “If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” To what extent does homeopathy look like quackery and sound like quackery?
One clear link that homeopathy has to quackery is its supporters’ use of faulty logic. The first example is known as the “test of time” argument — the fact that homeopathy has existed for a long time shows that it is valid. But longevity does not guarantee validity. Astrology, numerology, and dowsing have been around for a long time, but they are clear examples of pseudoscience. Longevity of an idea is never a good substitute for rigorous science.
The second argument is that many people have tried homeopathic remedies and are all satisfied, so homeopathy must be legitimate. Along the same lines, we are told that the following famous and important people all supported homeopathy: The British royal family, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Mark Twain, O. J. Simpson, Yehudi Menuhin, Angela Lansbury, and Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science). The Chinese have a saying that if a thousand people say something foolish, it is still foolish. Also a majority vote is no substitute for good science. In addition, we usually hear only about the successes, but the failures are conveniently forgotten or ignored.
A third argument is the “non sequitur.” Typically, the crackpot says: “They laughed at Galileo, and he was right. Today they laugh at me; therefore I must be right.” (Actually Galileo was not laughed at. Rather he was persecuted because he was devoid of a proper Christian faith to accept the correct dogma.) Homeopaths say that throughout history many great geniuses have rebelled against the prevailing wisdom; many of these were ultimately recognized as correct. Paracelsus, William Harvey, Louis Pasteur, and Joseph Lister were vindicated by history. Therefore, it is argued, Samuel Hahnemann and homeopathy also will ultimately be recognized as correct. But this argument forgets that many more who claimed to be geniuses were correctly rejected.
In the spirit of fair-mindedness, one may be tempted to give homeopathy the benefit of the doubt and simply conclude “not yet proven.” However, what then are we to do when many lay practitioners report that merely writing the name of the remedy on a piece of paper, and putting this on the body of the patient results in a “cure.” Even two respected national spokesmen were unwilling to reject these reports, and one of them suggested that quantum physics may ultimately explain these healings as well as those reported by patients who are given the remedy over the phone.
We must conclude that homeopathy certainly sounds like quackery.”
I have to agree with Michael’sword latest comment about the descent of the conversation. Let’s try to improve it. I’ll do my part.
One more parting comment for the night (it’s very late where I am), let’s drop the homeopathy debate. I don’t believe I’ll convince you as you have your own experience to draw on, and I have already enough on it over the years to solidify my opinion, so personal experiences is not going to convince me. (That is in the general since, too.)
Can we turn back to the topic? I’m sure David Bacon is amused by a lot of this senseless banter (that is comment on me not others as I am a sucker for bad debates), but there is a topic.
I agree with the calls for more civility, but I’m wondering, even with that, how much further this conversation can proceed.
It’s not just that those involved in the discussion hold different viewpoints on Dyers claims, but rather they approach his claims with such entirely different methods for discerning truth from falsity in general.
Temporarily set aside the discussion of critiqueing the merits/drawbacks of the different approaches to knowledge used by those in this debate.
If a common set of tools for assessing an empirical or philosopical claim can’t be agreed upon then things grind to a halt pretty quickly. A discussion between astrophysicists and astrologers on “The effects of the planet Saturn on the lives of humans on Earth” can be interesting for the first 10 or 15 minutes or so, after that, there’s nothing more useful to be said.
Perhaps. I think it’s amusing the way quantum mechanics is so widely used to link any subjective idea to science. When something is compared to quantum mechanics (the properties of healing, consciousness, etc.) suddenly everything about it operates on quantum properties and you can claim your idea is backed by science.
Dr. Bacon, one book I recommend to add to your library list (in the right hand column) is: “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” by Michael Shermer.
Challenge to Jodee: show me an example where communicable diseases are largely eradicated, starvation is minimized (i.e., large local agricultural yield per acre is available), life spans increase, infant mortality rates decrease, and more discretionary time is spent on non-survival activities that does not also have a correlating economy?
Interesting that after you’ve gotten YOUR personal attack in, NOW we should all be civil and shame on me? Come on, Michael’sword…the demon in Amityville? Just remember that when you point the finger at someone else, three are pointing back at you. Thankfully you can spell.
And JQP, you did appear to me to be somewhat impressed just by the notion that there might be something worth considering. It just looked like psycho-babble to me. I’ve never been terribly impressed with esoterics. It seems to be a popular technique for elevating oneself over others and creating an image of higher understanding and wisdom. I find it very self-serving, most of the time – and who can counter them as their claims are completely unquantifiable. (Gee, I think we’re back on topic, here.) I think we probably agree on this point, at least in regard to Dr. Dyer.
“Religion dressed up in authority soaked in pseudoscience. ” I think that applies to way more than Dr. Dyer. I find that scientifically speaking, that is the perfect description of allopathy. Re: “Confessions of a Medical Heretic” (Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, PhD) JQP, do you not see a pattern here? All the references I’ve sited for you are MEDICAL people and scientists. They are brave souls in their fields who aren’t afraid to say that the “Emporer has no clothes.” My attempts to explain the electric nature of the universe and everything in it (re: “Sub Atomic Physics” Frauenfelder & Henley; Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1991 & “The Structure and Properties of Water” D. Eisenberg; Oxford University Press, New York) and homeopathy have nothing to do with my opinion or even my personal experience. They are purely science. Misunderstanding of that science doesn’t equate to “debunking”. The fact that I have used that particular modality (as well as others,) only substantiates for me, the validity of that science, but the truth of the science is certainly not dependent on my opinion, as is the case with any science. It is true, or it isn’t. It is factual or it isn’t. It is proven or it’s theory.
I agree that you are unlikely to change your mind, especially if you are unwilling to do the research. I don’t know that you aren’t, but you seem pretty content to stay in the paradigm that you’re in, so at this point it seems pointless to continue that particular debate. People behave according to what they believe to be true, with or without the benefit of facts. I’m certainly unwilling to change my view of allopathy, and that’s based both on personal research AND personal experience. I’ve learned what the science is and I know how it damaged me. Conversely, I also know how avoiding it in favor of more physiologically compatible modalities has benefited me.
As far as your challenge is concerned, it is nearly impossible for me to meet as there are a couple of premises that are either incorrect or too vague to adress. You’re talking infectous diseases, when we’re in the age of degenerative diseases. (USA) While antibiotics may have had a band-aid effect in underdeveloped countries at some point in time (including this one), we are now suffering the consequences of that short-sighted band-aid solution – “super-bugs”. And viral organisms go through evolutionary cycles (evolution in the true sense, not the metemorphic sense) whose declines can be historically charted in both countries that vaccinated and ones that didn’t. The decline rates are nearly indistinguishable between the two. Degenerative diseases are the result of nutrient deficiencies, not drug deficiencies. Out of 12 developed countries including Canada, France, Germany, & Japan, the US consistantly ranks LAST on the basis of sixteen different indicators of health care efficacy. The WHO ranked the US 37th in the world overall. Yet, the US out-ranks EVERY other country in allopathic spending. As a statistition, I should think that would interest you somewhat. The info is out there for anyone who is truly interested in knowing.
It’s been a stimulating discussion, JQP, but I think we’re done. Thanks. It was fun.
To JQP:
You’re going to engage in an extended conversation about Wayne Dyer’s statements on “Intentionality” and quantum physics with those who believe, among other things, that gravity is electrically based, and that our bodies can be healed by the frequencies in herbs, and you’re expecting a meaningful discussion on the topic?
“Hope Springs Eternal” begins the final paragraph of Shermer’s book 🙂
MÃ¥nesteiner: Well, I am perpetually curious why people buy into some very fringe ideas. Specifically, if they are just contrarians (which, ironically, means their views are still defined by mainstream thought) or if there is any real logic there–and I don’t mean a tie to science kind of logic, which is almost always the case, such as borrowing from quantum theory terminology, but an actual procession of rational thought. Like Shermer’s example on the Holocaust deniers.
But my challenge was legitimate. I really am curious if there is a case either in history or just naming some sovereign state where there is sustained improvement in conditions with no ties to a strong local economy.
But a lot of my points are of the “how high will this ball bounce if I throw it this way” vein.
I also find it interesting how deeply emotional and personal worldviews are. They become fortresses that must be defended at all costs sometimes.
Have you read any of Bacon’s research papers on this site? They’re pretty interesting.
“MÃ¥nesteiner: Well, I am perpetually curious why people buy into some very fringe ideas.”
I’d agree with Shermer in that “… the reason people believe weird things is because they want to. It feels good.” p.275
As you know, in his book Shermer argues that the human brain is hardwired for pattern seeking, we
search for causality. Those are basic survival skills. Not exactly a new idea, but still the Psych research does support that. So, confronted with raw data, we’re always wanting an explanation, a context.
He also notes that rational thinking, skepticism, takes effort and work. It’s not the brains default approach to incoming data. So, less disciplined minds (hardwired for pattern seeking) will connect the dots in lazier ways, resulting in magical thinking, astrology, fringe ideas, etc.
Anyways, that’s my take on why people believe crazy stuff!
“I really am curious if there is a case either in history or just naming some sovereign state where there is sustained improvement in conditions with no ties to a strong local economy.”
Not that I can think of, I think you’re correct on that.
I haven’t read Bacon’s research papers yet, but I will check them out 🙂
The flat-worlder/earth, the center of the universe masses thought that a round earth solar centered system was “fringe”. That didn’t make them correct. Most peopel would rather believe the lies that are endorsed by the herd. Those “patterns” are ususally easier to swallow. (Zeitgeist)
There is one simply principle that improved conditions in any society: don’t eat where you poop and and don’t poop where you eat. And proper sanitation is not soley dependant on capitalism or free market, (which are not necessarily synonymous.) I see the perceived prosperity in the US as masked slavery to a system over which the average person has no control and cannot function without. When it all comes crashing down, which a debt-based economy has to eventually, most people won’t know how to survive on their own. I don’t call that prosperous.
Wow! long weekend. Sorry for the typos: people, usually, simple, not simply. At least I got all the big words correct. LOL
Ah, yes, the perennial Galileo argument. That can be used to justify just about anything, I guess.
I read “The Great Depression of 1990†by Ravi Bahtra, long ago, “Bankrupcy 1995†by Harry Figgie, Jr., “The Day of Reckoning†(forgot that author) not to mention “Famine 1975â€. All these ideas went the way of Y2K. I have seen nothing but prosperity my whole life (I’m not far from 60) and I suspect that won’t change. Not that depressions don’t happen, but when they have occurred (1870, 1929, etc.) the economy tends to come back stronger that before the episode. They’re really price correction episodes, kind of like the housing market right now. Home value was just raising too fast and had to come down, which is a good thing.
Glad to see someone else reading Shermer, månesteiner. Sending some of these putative claims to the test I think has long been needed.
Regarding Bacon’s papers, they’re pretty abstruse but I have barely just enough math background to follow them. I really didn’t know what quantum computing was attempting to accomplish, but this has given me an idea. I wonder if there will be any on the market before the 2038 32-bit epoch date problem hits (not that I’ll be around)? But I guess everyone should be 64-bit before then. But the ideal of a boundless computing architecture (which I think is where it’s going) is pretty intriguing. But I have yet to understand the material properties that can allow a qubit its multiple states. More reading…
Okay, JQP and Manesteiner. I understand why you are not understanding me. I read (re-read) the first 10 pages of Dyer’s book and he talks about this force (intention) all around us and in everything. Sounds a lot like electricity actually, so if you’re not buying into his stuff, I can see where you’d have a hard time with what I was saying. The thing is, every lie, every deception, starts with a truth. Yes, as Tesla discovered, there is a “force” or “field” all around us and in everything. But that is where the truth of the matter ends with Dr. Dyer. From there he goes into contradiction and circular reasoning (pretzel logic.) On the one hand he seems to be preaching a sort of predestination, and then on the other hand a way to change that predestination or how we keep it from happening in our lives. But, predestination by definition is unchangable. I note that he himself has been unsuccessful in changing his when it comes to baldness and a hairy nose and ears. He is resigned to keep “trimming away” while he merely observes. Why won’t intention let him intend himself hair on his head?
So, back to Tesla for a moment. He discovered ways of harnessing energy out of thin air, so to speak. He likely discovered and developed a way of producing perpetual energy and/or motion. We can only surmise at this point, because at the same time that he was working on his discoveries and inventions, Edison and Westinghouse had already decided to take that same electricity, channel it through wires, and charge people for it. (Tesla would have given it to us for free.) So, once again, the ugly side of monopolistic capitalism (vs. free market) rears it’s ugly head. Instead of paying our electric bills, we could have been doing something else perhaps even something fun, with our resources. Rather, most people are hopelessly, helplessly tied into power grids, that when they fail, send the masses into a tail spin.
Because Westinghouse and Edison saw a real threat to their power, prestige, and profits, much of Tesla’s documentation of experiments and inventions were destroyed “mysteriously” (if memory serves, by an unexplained fire), and Tesla was driven to ruin. When lust for power and wealth rear their ugly heads, it seems the prophets of liberty are destroyed. (Dr. Gearson – 1930’s – would be another one.)
Orson Wells, before he died, became very interested in Tesla’s work, and began attempting to reconstruct if from the little that remains of it. He had limited success, but was still able to demonstrate a simple electrical event, that without understanding what was really happening, was mind boggling.
Just think of the prosperity that we could have enjoyed if we were free of the grid – if we really could be self-sufficient. Hmmm. Real freedom vs. perceived freedom.
I see there was a lively discussion over the weekend.
I have to finish a project so I will be brief.
JQP: “Zer0, you appear to be emotionally worked up. It’s just a volley of ideas, no emotion necessary.”
I did not have any emotions up until Jodee showed up.
In fact I was bored to death reading the bland posts by you and others like you. It was like monitoring a conversation between robots, that were programed by the same programmer to appear human, to show disagreement but be in agreement at the core, to show emotion but be mechanical in their judgment and reasoning. I admit that Jodee got me excited when she rattled the robot cage and I’m not going to apologize or feel inadequate for expressing my emotions.
Looking at the history of progress I can say that it is free thinkers like Jodee that have pushed the envelope and fought against the current of ignorance and ridicule to discover new fertile planes while the general public (the sheep, the herd) kick and scream as they are pushed to the new plane, then reap the benefits munching on the delicious green grass but quickly forget the history of how and by whose “extra-ordinary” visions and efforts they got there. This history repeats itself the next time someone dares to separate from the heard and say “hey there is something new and different just beyond the next ridge (mental obstacle).
Does anyone know and remember Nikola Tesla other than a narrow layer of people? What he has contributed to the advancement of the civilization is very little understood by the “herd” and is mainly undermined and forgotten. Instead the heard credits others with his discoveries. There is so much that we don’t know about him and many others like him.
Jodee, just saw your post after I posted mine. It is interesting that we both remembered Tesla at the same time. JQP would say it is coincidence but we know better than that 🙂
To JQP:
Regarding Dave Bacon’s writings, I took a peek but they are way over my head. I’ve got only a layman’s grasp of Quantum Physics, not enough to follow Dave Bacon.
“Glad to see someone else reading Shermer, mÃ¥nesteiner”
Back in the day, early 1980’s, my friends and I were amateur cyclists in the Phoenix area. We still remember Michael Shermer taking on the phenomenal Lon Haldeman in the Race Across America. So it’s with great affection, and nostalgia, that I read him today.
No, zer0, I think it’s a connected consciousness because who else would think of Nikola Tesla (or George Westinghouse, for that matter) when the word electricity comes up? Very rare indeed.
So, everything is really comprised of electricity? And here I thought it was ball bearings all this time. (At least, that’s what Fletch said.)
Jodee, some things you type give me the image you’re a little bit Nikita Khrushchev mixed with Robespierre (and maybe with a little attitude of Emma the Red). So, once capitalism is stamped out (what will replace it, anyway?) will there be a reign of terror? Will the lower middle class on down (the ones without plasma TVs and with they’re Beta-max’s still in use) behead the wealthy class? It seems to me that by and large Americans aspire to the wealthy class, not despise it.
Also, the national debt (if that is what you meant by a debt economy) is almost entirely owed (the interest) back to the same American economy that incurred it. So it’s circular, and not lost income. It’s like owing yourself $1,000.
But if you mean consumer debt, it is still a small percentage of GDP, so it’s covered. And if you mean government debt, that too is small percentage of GDP. It was not long ago that Italy’s national debt (total) was 110% of their GDP and yet they’re still thriving; no big collapses that I’ve heard of. Also, there is a trend towards capitalism lately: Canada recently elected Stephen Harper who opposes socialism; Angela Merkel recently elected in Germany who also ran against socialism; Nicolas Sarkozy is very pro-American capitalism and opposed the very socialistic Ségolène Royal; Gordon Brown of the U.K. was part of the labour movement that shifted it away from socialism.
Why is this happening? Because socialism is, largely, economically unsustainable. Not all of it, but too much of it is.
“…who…would think of Nikola Tesla (or George Westinghouse…) when the word electricity comes up?”
LOL. Good zinger, JQP.
Zer0, I guess you’re not aware that Tesla is largely known by the public. In fact, there was an eighties hair band that even used his name. I don’t think I’ve met anyone who doesn’t know that name. It’s not that obscure.
JQP, Well, I guess civility is out the window once again. Very well. I think you may still be suffering residual brain fog from the last meds you were on. You’ve not been reading with any kind of understanding at all. It seems to me that you and your boys are just having fun picking on the girl. Oooo, but that would just be sexist, so that can’t be it.
Nikita Khrushchev would be one of those fascist dictators I referred to earlier, so try to get over yourself and follow what I’m really saying here. What replaces monopolistic capitalism is FREE MARKET!!! We have not enjoyed the benefits of a truly free market in some time. Thus, the Tesla point. There is no free market when it comes to energy, and that’s just one example. How many entrepreneus have invented alternative fuel cars, only to be quashed by the established automobile monopolies via paid lobbyists, “gifts” to key legislative and judicial figures, etc.? These pioneers and their inventions have all gone the way of the Tucker and the Red Car. In the absence of a free market, there is only a manipulated market, which inevitably puts wealth and liberty in the hands of an elite few and takes on various forms and degrees of fascism. Surely, you’ve heard of the disappearing middle class – it’s been in all the papers.
And BTW, I highly doubt that the general public knows who Tesla is. Most of them don’t even know the difference between Alexander Hamilton and George Hamilton.
Gary, only those who have gotten a decent education or bothered to educate themselves would connect Telsa with electricity. JQP is old enough to have had a 50/50 chance of going to public schools that actually taught relevent curriculum; either that, or the benefits from private education. That doesn’t apply to a vast number of the public today, which his “zinger” doesn’t take into account. You have now joined the ranks of the narrow-minded. Congratulations.
Watched Wayne Dyer on PBS last night, just for kicks. (He is supposed to be the topic of this discussion, right?) So, as he touts the benefits of minimalism, I have to wonder: why does he need two houses? and why does his “entlightenment” cost 295.00-350.00, not including air fare to MAUI. If we only use (and therefore, only NEED,) 20% of what we have, why does he have 80% more (Florida and Maui are NOT cheap places to live,) than those who so desparately need his instruction and vision? Oh, yeah. They gave him that 80% they weren’t using.
So, here’s the formula: take commonly understood words, like “intention”, and alter the meaning to some high-minded esoteric application. This helps keep the unthinking masses off balance and makes them think you know something they don’t. This in turn, elevates you to a higher position than they. And just in case they start thinking you’re arrogant, remind them of how humbe you really are. (Truly humble people don’t have to tell others they’re humble, they just are.) Now throw in just enough truth, recognizable even to the non-thinking masses, to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about. Then when you hit a conundrum, which of course, you have created with your esoteric crap, jump to a personal and amusing anecdotal story from your enlightened past to “illustrate” the point. Laughter makes the herd forget the (You can tell this by all the nodding heads in the crowd.) Continue with unquantifiable claims of peace and happiness, and at the end of your “sermon”, collect the profits.
I certainly don’t begrudge anyone financial success. I’m all for free market enterprise, as I have repeatedly stated. I simply object to deceipt as a means of obstaining it. However, I as much as I may personally object, I object even more that so many people fall for the deception, because that’s where the free market fails. It fails when people stop thinking for themselves and allow charlatans to tell them what to value and what to think. Enter the subtle slavery of religion and a manipulated market. (Which are probably not all that different from each other.)
I have another question – If Wayne Dyer is the master of conflict resolution he claims to be, why is he divorced – twice? I can understand maybe the first one going to pot – young, stupid, chose unwisely, etc.; only had one kid. But, to then divorce a woman you’ve had 7 kids with – what’s up with that?! Did mommy get tired of trying to keep some level of order in a house full of kids while daddy sat on the couch and “let them work things out for themselves?” Just curious.
ZerO. Appreciate your remarks. You’re probably young – maybe late 20’s/early 30’s – just a guess. But you give me hope for the future. Keep having kids and teaching them to think for themselves.
Jodee, Thanks for the complement about my perceived age. Chronologically I am 43 years old, but biologically I feel as young and as healthy as when I was 30. I think what threw you off was the age of my daughter, or maybe my attitude.
I’m not going to guess your age, but whatever it is you are very wise for your age (or any age for that matter). You have done a great deal of self education, because none of the stuff you have acquired can be learned in any school.
My hope for the future is my daughter. I am planing to retire early and take on her education myself. When she graduates from my school she will be an independent and truly free person that can lead the heard and not follow it. She will know how to grow her own food, how to be off the grid (or greed), etc. She will be brave and fearless, ready to tackle any issue and come out victorious.
Seeing her energy and curiosity makes me hopeful. I will not let her down and I’m sure she will not let me or herself down either when the time comes.
Jodee:
1. The ‘zinger’ was funny, like it or not.
2. Your comments and observations are intelligent and your sex is irrelevant.
3. You seem to be a very angry person. Who, exactly, are you pissed off at?
…the world, maybe?
JQP (and others), knowing someone’s name does not equate to knowing the person and their worth.
I know about the Tesla band, I have their fist album. In my collage days I played an electric guitar and was into Hard Rock and Heavy Metal. So, don’t think that you are giving me an education on Tesla’s name and it’s use by the herd.
In all my collage and university years I don’t recall reading anything about Tesla other than a brief and inaccurate biography in textbooks and learning that the tesla (symbol T) is the SI derived unit of magnetic flux density.
If you think that associating Tesla’s name with electricity separates you from the herd, think again. If you or anyone else really knew about Tesla and his work, would know about his bladeless turbine that can also be used as a pump, about his air-to-air air conditioner that can cool air down to -40deg C without using any hazardous refrigerants, etc, etc. His contribution to areas other than electricity has been undermined just as bad.
You should go look this up and educate yourself, so next time you can associate Tesla’s name with more than electricity.
You stated that you read 300 books a year. Seems to me that you are more concerned with quantity than quality. I would suggest that for the next year, for every book you read that supports a given viewpoint you read a book that contradicts or presents an alternative to that viewpoint. In my opinion you have a very narrow and one-sided view of the world around you.
You need to expand your mind and expose it to wider spectrum of knowledge that’s out there.
Who said I didn’t know the Tesla story? Jumping to conclusions again. The point was that the association is not remote enough to support your point: that it was some kind of universal connection. I never touched on the Tesla story, only the association which you made clear was significant. I doubt many do know the story and struggle of Tesla and Westinghouse. But your point was that you thought it was significant and unusual that you too thought of Tesla, brought my name into it and, so, that warranted comment.
Your remarks on what I know or may not know is just speculation. Besides, it’s not a way to make a good rebuttal.
By the way, a lot of books I read don’t support my view. I read all of Dyer’s for example, including that latest screed. But you’re speculating, again, and not basing even that on any evidence. You have no information to determine the spectrum of what I read. In fact, many of my points are precisely stated in a way that give clues that I’m already familiar with the arguments. For example, I said “life span” and not “life expectancy” because I already knew the standard argument for “why is life expectancy increased” is “improved waste management.” Which Jodee is exactly right about for “life expectancy” but not “life span.” (They’re two different measurements. If you’re well read on history, then you already know this.) So, if knew the topic you would have caught that subtle frame up. But I was glad to see Jodee respond with what is a generally accepted—yes, external review weeds!–position.
Also, I don’t think sarcasm is out of line. But some just have great big hot buttons I sometimes can’t resist pushing them.
Finally, why do so many come to discussion forums not to actually discuss but to find support? I respond mostly to those who disagree with me (which has come down to you two) because that is the point. I’m not seeking any support, because I’ve heard almost everyone of these arguments before. In the eighties when was an options trader I heard about capitalism collapsing all the time. Mostly from those identified as “survivalists.†When I was working on my graduate degree in economics, I debated a lot with a good friend (and later an employee) about the sustainability of a monetary fiat system vs. the Austrian economic system. (Which is one of the many arguments for a collapse of the U.S. economy.) I was attempting to smoke out Jodee’s thoughts on how and why the economy would collapse. But, I hold a undergrad degree in world history, a grad degree in computer science and in macro economics. So, I’m pretty secure with my education.
I just noticed an incomplete statement in that post. I meant to say, “yes, external review weeds out untruths.” Bad editing on my part.
Jodee, I haven’t gone through all your last rebuttals (I just flew in from Texas) but I noticed the “Free market” response. Very encouraging, indeed. You’ve piqued my interest. Just need a little time.
And, zer0, I don’t mean to pick on you at all. However, when you lay down your opinions like that you should expect criticism–and when you do it passionately, then you’re setting yourself up for possible ridicule. If I’ve been too rough and it bothers you, then I apologize. I welcome any sarcasm back. I can take it and deserve some at this point.
One other thing, Jodee, I’ve glossed over some points you’ve made that I thought were really good and I fully agree with, but I got distracted because I thought you were setting up for a socialist or survivalist position and also with the electricity thing. I was jumping to conclusions, too.
Gary, it does appear as if gender is indeed the issue. When you guys spar with snide sarcasm you’re “making a point” or “defending a position”. When I send it back to you, I must be “angry”- at the whole world, no less. Typical male response. Women dish it out and they’re catty, bitchy, bitter, angry, etc. Maybe I’m just annoyed that you can’t seem to come up with an intelligent response.
Jodee:
I apologize if I’ve offended you. I’m not qualified to debate economic, political, medical or even social issues like you, Zer0 and JQP. I only got in on this because of what I felt was Wayne Dyer’s inappropriate use of certain scientific concepts and Taoist philosophical principles.
Good luck with your continuing debate.
Ouch!
LOL, may this lively discussion never end . And BTW, where are u, HavAgr8Day. Please come back to help us resolve: “Energy?” Wayne Dyer? Does “intention” work? The world’s problems? Good night.
“Consciousness collapses the wave function into actual particles that exist in space and time. Consciousness experiences energy as matter.
Consciousness is the energy that influences energy. All energy is actually consciousness, therefore it is consciousness influencing itself.
The observer is not apart from the observation. The experimenter is not apart from the experiment.
The observer simultaneously plays a part in creating the reality he is observing. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of consciousness states that no pure measurement is possible without creation. Physicists who deal in quantum mechanics state: “You cannot (objectively) observe something without changing it in the process.â€
This experiment also shows that God remains unmanifest unless you participate. Without God, we cannot. Without us, God would not. We are all co-creators of reality with God. God moves only when there is intention or prayer. Faith is focus.
Everything is energy and energy is mental. The mind creates and controls reality.
Our thoughts have the very power to shape our reality. This is how the Law of Attraction works. What we focus on most of the time, we get. The observer creates reality simply by observing.”
__________________________________________
Good God.
LOL, nice paragraph.
“What we focus on most of the time, we get.”
Crapzolla, I’m going to get a lot of mathematical equations about quantum algorithms?
“Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory developed early in the century to account for the anomalous behavior of light and atoms, are being misconstrued so as to imply that only thoughts are real and that the physical universe is the product of a cosmic mind to which the human mind is linked throughout space and time. This interpretation has provided an ostensibly scientific basis for various mind-over-matter claims, from ESP to alternative medicine. “Quantum mysticism” also forms part of the intellectual backdrop for the postmodern assertion that science has no claim on objective reality.
The word “quantum” appears frequently in New Age and modern mystical literature. For example, physician Deepak Chopra (1989) has successfully promoted a notion he calls quantum healing, which suggests we can cure all our ills by the application of sufficient mental power.
According to Chopra, this profound conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics, which he says has demonstrated that “the physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as we create the experience of our world” (Chopra 1993, 5). Chopra also asserts that “beliefs, thoughts, and emotions create the chemical reactions that uphold life in every cell,” and “the world you live in, including the experience of your body, is completely dictated by how you learn to perceive it” (Chopra 1993, 6). Thus illness and aging are an illusion and we can achieve what Chopra calls “ageless body, timeless mind” by the sheer force of consciousness.
Since no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has been found, despite 150 years of effort, this is a flimsy basis indeed for quantum consciousness.”
Thus…
“The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Bohr and still held by most physicists, says nothing about consciousness. It concerns only what can be measured and what predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a mathematical object used to calculate probabilities. Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon. Nowhere does quantum mechanics imply that real matter or signals travel faster than light. In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics (Eberhard and Ross 1989).”
JQP: “The point was that the association is not remote enough to support your point: that it was some kind of universal connection.”
I did not imply that it was a universal connection, I left it open ended. I just remarked that “it was interesting”.
JQP: “Also, I don’t think sarcasm is out of line. But some just have great big hot buttons I sometimes can’t resist pushing them.”
Well, if you like pushing the button then you shouldn’t complain about the “hot” responses you get :).
JQP” “Finally, why do so many come to discussion forums not to actually discuss but to find support? I respond mostly to those who disagree with me (which has come down to you two) because that is the point.”
I agree with you completely John. Even though we exchange some “heavy punches” in this forum (and you have to admit that Jodee packs some really heavy ones) we return to our corners as “good sportsmen/sportswomen”. Even though Jodee and I feel and think along the same lines we don’t need each others support to fight our battles. And we don’t mean to gang up on you (I hope you don’t feel that we do). We can take turns if you like 🙂
Let’s have a great weekend and come back ready to “rumble”. 🙂
For zer0:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=31445223
JQP, impressive educational resume’ to be sure, but what that tells me, in view of some of your responses, is that you’re looking at all these issues through the eyes and/or under the influence of people who likely have more letters after their names than you do after yours. Honestly, you do come across as narrow-minded in many of your remarks. And the fact that you are “secure in [your] education” seems to imply that you think you have nothing more to learn, or that you at least know more than anyone who has no letters or fewer letters after their names. Perhaps it was simply a poor choice of words on your part, but in presenting your positions, you do tend to give the impressions that ZerO expressed.
So far, the assumed implications of me as person have included: demon from Amityville, contrarian, ex-hippy druggy, fringe (radical), and socialist communist/fascist sympathizer. And why? just because I have made the informed choice of using alternative health care and I recognize an electrical nature to things, (based, BTW, on the fact that EVERY molecule is made up of electrical matrices, not solid particles)? You have made or concurred with most of these assumptions either directly or indirectly. Whether you intend it or not, that makes you appear to be narrow-minded and unwilling to consider anything outside your own educational sphere or experience.
The ex-hippy inference is particularly hilarious, since I have never smoked anything, not even once, in my entire life, and never experimented with narcotics legal or illegal. In fact, I’m allergic to most drugs, even over-the-counter types (I’m talking hives and a number of other unpleasant manifestations).
I don’t have your expensive education or letters after my name, but I do have a pretty good grasp of logic, an extensive ever-growing research library, and an insatiable thirst for truth in all arenas. The main difference between us that I see, is that when I read/study data, I am not under the third party influence of someone else’s opinion about it – someone who is even more invested in their letters than I would be as one of his/her students under pressure to make a grade and get letters after my name, too. I’m free to apply my logic and critical thinking and come to my own conclusions or even determine that the data is inconclusive or questionable. (and I’m not implying that you’ve never done the latter.) I’m not invested in letters after my name, so I have nothing to jeopardize in changing or expanding my views.
It is splitting hairs to differentiate between life span and life expectancy in this discussion, since life expectancy can’t be determined without the data on life span. There is a distinct correlation between sanitation and life span, ergo, life expectancy, as noted by any number of well respected researchers. Furthermore, all alternative medicine cannot be lumped into one box. There are many modes, most of which are useful to many, none of which are useful to all, and some of which are total crap. Only someone willing to accept truth at any cost can accept it where ever it is found, regardless of the box someone may have put it in.
I don’t gainsay the value of your expensive education, but it has it’s limitations and you academic types often come off as arrogant and close-minded, perhaps because you are still paying off your student loans, or it hasn’t been that long since you did. I can see how it would be tempting to assume that the expense has rendered you an unsurpassable knowledge in most fields of debate – except, of course for debates with people who have even more letters after their names.
Of course, this is just the opinion of a lowly lay person.
Is this discussion getting really weird, or what?
Maybe the wave is collapsing.
Doh!
Question: why is science used as support for fringe ideas when convenient, but refuted when it contradicts?
And who is “Crapzolla?”
“Question: why is science used as support for fringe ideas when convenient, but refuted when it
contradicts?”
The same reason politicians point to phenomenom X, Y or Z when it supports their agenda, but downplay or ignore the same when it doesn’t. Or that a baseball player will cite a certain training regimen as the reason for his successful performance this season, but offer a different explanation when the same regimen yields poor results the next season.
When the mission is only to persuade an audience, which sometimes, sadly, includes oneself (for example, just listen to the excuses people come up with as to why their ex dumped them), the standards of argument sufficient to persuasion are all that’s needed. Honest thinking takes work, and sometimes hurts.
True. But the interesting cases are when the premise is that science can’t prove all or science is stubborn and (always) on the verge of coming around to whatever mysticism is on display–then scientific reasoning is used to support it. Yet the reverse does not occur. Science never uses faith to support its position. Reason is always the inescapable component.
I do have a question for Bacon regarding a statement above: “In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics.”
What about entanglement?
JQP, impressive educational resume’ to be sure, but what that tells me, in view of some of your responses, is that you’re looking at all these issues through the eyes and/or under the influence of people who likely have more letters after their names than you do after yours. Honestly, you do come across as narrow-minded in many of your remarks. And the fact that you are “secure in [your] education” seems to imply that you think you have nothing more to learn, or that you at least know more than anyone who has no letters or fewer letters after their names. Perhaps it was simply a poor choice of words on your part, but in presenting your positions, you do tend to give the impressions that ZerO expressed.
So far, the assumed implications of me as person have included: demon from Amityville, contrarian, ex-hippy druggy, fringe (radical), and socialist communist/fascist sympathizer. And why? just because I have made the informed choice of using alternative health care and I recognize an electrical nature to things, (based, BTW, on the fact that EVERY molecule is made up of electrical matrices, not solid particles)? You have made or concurred with most of these assumptions either directly or indirectly. Whether you intend it or not, that makes you appear to be narrow-minded and unwilling to consider anything outside your own educational sphere or experience.
The ex-hippy inference is particularly hilarious, since I have never smoked anything, not even once, in my entire life, and never experimented with narcotics legal or illegal. In fact, I’m allergic to most drugs, even over-the-counter types (I’m talking hives and a number of other unpleasant manifestations).
I don’t have your expensive education or letters after my name, but I do have a pretty good grasp of logic, an extensive ever-growing research library, and an insatiable thirst for truth in all arenas. The main difference between us that I see, is that when I read/study data, I am not under the third party influence of someone else’s opinion about it – someone who is even more invested in their letters than I would be as one of his/her students under pressure to make a grade and get letters after my name, too. I’m an equal opportunity offender 😉 I’m free to apply my logic and critical thinking and come to my own conclusions or even determine that the data is inconclusive or questionable. (and I’m not implying that you’ve never done the latter.) I’m not invested in letters after my name, so I have nothing to jeopardize in changing or expanding my views.
It is splitting hairs to differentiate between life span and life expectancy in this discussion, since life expectancy can’t be determined without the data on life span. There is a distinct correlation between sanitation and life span, ergo, life expectancy, as noted by any number of well respected researchers. Furthermore, all alternative medicine cannot be lumped into one box. There are many modalities, most of which are useful to many, none of which are useful to all, and some of which are total crap. Only someone willing to accept truth at any cost can accept it where ever it is found, regardless of the box someone may have put it in.
I don’t gainsay the value of your expensive education, but it has it’s limitations and you academic types often come off as arrogant and close-minded, perhaps because you are still paying off your student loans, or it hasn’t been that long since you did. I can see how it would be tempting to assume that the expense has rendered you an unsurpassable knowledge in most fields of debate – except, perhaps for debates with people who have even more letters after their names.
Of course, this is just the opinion of a lowly lay person.
Sorry, everyone for the double post. My computer glitched.
That’s one of the many benefits of dial-up.
Two guys in a bar are arguing whether women are equally as good as men in math. “I can prove to you women are not as good,†exclaims one. “When that waitress comes over I will ask her to integrate x squared and I bet you $5 she won’t know what I’m talking about.†Making sure he won’t lose the bet, the other excuses himself to catch the waitress in the back of the room and give her the answer. “Look,†he says, “that guy over there will ask you a question and when he does just say ‘one third x cubed,’ OK?†She agrees. When the time comes and he asks, “what’s the integral of x squared?†“One third x cubed,†she replies. Then as she walks away she looks over her shoulder and says, “plus a constant!â€
Hmmm, a testing post…
Not sure what’s happenin’ with computer, so will try to post a few short posts and see if they will work…
Hey, Hi everyone!!! 🙂 🙂
Otay. Worked.
I really want/need to post a few things:
1. clean up my messy last post 🙂
2. write a post that I think the universe wants me to share 🙂 (Really – otherwise, I’d skip it)
3. and write one last one that my conscious feels sort of required to…..
so let’s see how fast i get through it, may have to wait a bit if the posting is slow 🙂
Messy last post:
JQ – I DID feel love for you 🙂 as soon as re-claimed my time. (Btw, my love or not really was irrelevent – I wasn’t trying to set myself up as a love and peace expert – only interjecting those words a lot because I felt the engine was wired a little too tight in terms of the conversation) and that throwing out LOVE, LOVE, LOVE might get the engine a little lubricated, so to speak :).
Perhaps toss it a little over into the right hemisphere – where WONDER DOES SOMETIMES HAPPEN (in my humble experience).
Anyway, my last post to you reflected frustration and distress (which I’ll address directly in my last post) – and my desire to get my lil rear outta here so that I could get to the work I needed to do.
But it left me with a sense that I’d thrown a bit of a hissy fit 🙂 🙂 🙂
And if I think I make a mess – I like to clean it up. So, onward? Yes? Good!
Okay,
what I feel the universe wants me to post:
(For those just joining, I had previously posted that I had seen Dyer’s PB fundraising talk on INSPIRATION, and that it had resonated on probably every level possible with me…)
SO, after posting several Dyer/creativity related posts – and then writing that I really didn’t have much more to say and would probably be dropping off… here’s what happened.
I DID mention that I came across Dyer’s book on INSPIRATION at Barnes and Noble – and then made another post somewhat about that. However, here’s what I didn’t say…….
(If i write a too long post, it seems to disappear, so will continue on next post…)
What I feel the Universe wants me to say CONT. 🙂
Here’s what I didn’t write:
I didn’t go to B&N to get/look at Dyer’s book.
I went to there to purchase a friend’s recently released Gift Book (something I like to do for all my writing friends).
When I couldn’t find the Gift Book in the Gift Book section – I went to the book sellers station and asked if they carried it.
The book seller said they did – but it had been stocked in the ‘self-help’ section.
As I followed the book-seller to this section, my mind was completely pre-occupied by a charming “growing up in Texas” story she was telling me… until she located my friend’s book and handed it to me.
I thanked her, and as she walked away, I looked back at the shelf to see if there were any addtl copies of the book left (something many writers like to know for some odd-ball but fun reason).
Anyway, when I looked at the spot where she had pulled my friend’s book from – I saw Dyer’s book on INSPIRATION (no other copies of friend’s book).
The INSPIRATION book was on the shelf just above, maybe one or two books to the left.
I didn’t think much, just grabbed it along with my friend’s and went to sit down for the last few minutes before the store closed.
(BTW, my friend’s last name begins with an L, and of course, Dyer’s begins with a …… oh, isn’t this fun???)
Anyway, having only seen portions of my friend’s book, I couldn’t resist diving into it right away – plus, gift book texts are generally short, fun (but the best ones pack a lot into those few words – i think).
And so, I was just finishing my friend’s book when I heard last call.
Hmmmm…. There was Dyer’s book sittin on my lap, i hadn’t thought through what i was going to do with it – didn’t have time to skim it. Ummm…
OKAY, I’m buying it.
The next day, while PROCRASTINATING from writing some correspondence that was for some reason difficult for me – I opened up his book, (PROCRASTINATING I THOUGHT) and skimmed it for about 15-20 minutes (later posting a few thoughts about what I’d read).
However, didn’t post this: the last thing I read in it (that the universe sort of inhales/exhales, gives/receives, etc) clicked somewhere inside of me – because when I sat down to write the correspondence that had been tricking me up for over two weeks – all of a sudden EVERYTHING flowed. It flowed because I realized that I needed to thank the person more than anything else. (Technically, professionally, I had – but in my heart, I knew given what I had received in our last interaction, that it wasn’t spiritually nearly enough.) Thus, as soon as my desire shifted to what I truly felt comfortable doing – thanking her for something more than worthy of that gratitude – everything else fell into a real, natural, RIGHT context. Two weeks of tail chasing – and finally – AHHH. Good. YAY.
***********************
About a week later, was feeling stumped about something else, opened Dyer’s book, spent about five minutes skimming a chapter – and the same thing happened.
Those are some good results for what I kept thinking was just a fluke and few minutes of time procrastinatin…….
*********************
After this second situation, I began to think, you know, this is startin to feel a little bit like some good ole synchronicity!!!!!!! (sometimes the experiences are a bit more BOLD and SHOCKING frankly – but the one above was still very fruitful.)
Anyway, thought – maybe I’m spose to write this on this board – but, feeling as pressed for time and as occasionally selfish as I am – put it off – UNTIL,
yesterday, I thought, what is WEDGED between this (puppy)gate and doorway. I looked down, and saw Dyer’s lovely face (and butterfly on his finger) looking up at me.
OKAY!!! ALRIGHTY!!! Ya got my attention!! I’ll write the post!!!
(Everything else on the corner table was undisturbed).
So, Universe, here is that post.
(BTW, i don’t even know if any of Dyer’s other books were on the shelf – didn’t look.)
Also, just a tip, writin these posts are a lot more fun when you have a little puppy layin fast asleep on your left shoulder…….
What I feel morally compelled to post:
David Bacon has his name/identity to what he writes. Thus, write what ya want Mr. Dr. Bacon, cuz, YOU are standing behind it. And if Dyer ever wants to address it honestly – he has the opportunity (somethin tells me – he probably won’t find the need – but that’s no insult to you Bac. 🙂
However, if you (like me) are using a name that allows you anonymity – then, I think you need to be a little more responsible when discussing your views on a real, live human being. (Discussing concepts? Okay, let it rip if ya need to. A human being? Well, if you’re going to really do a slice and dice job – then I think you need to do it the cloak of anonymity.)
I’m assuming that people all over the world have access to this public site.
JQ, I’m not trying to single you out, oh, heck, to an extent I am, so I’ll just choke the truth out of myself.
JQ, if you reviewed your posts about Dyer – some of what you say/said would be considered slander in my book. The words you used to describe him, his publisher, other related to him, etc. – were really, really – not just critical – but downright tearing apart, and in my book, (said in an understated way, really 😉 – rude.
I think when you start alleging as much as you did in your earlier posts (and I’m not trying to drag those up now, just address a concept about that) – that YOU REALLY NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE, IDENTIFY WHO YOU ARE, WHO YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH – AND allow others to have a true sense of who the real person is making all of these allegations.
Again, debating ideas is one thing, but what I wrote above something entirely different.
Having said that, in your previous posts, you mentioned that there were many things that you thought Dyer had expressed that were positive and helpful. You also mentioned that you believed he was SINCERE. I understood you to be saying that during earlier years in your life, you had gotten some positive out of his talks, etc.
And so, I ask you – why not now offer him the same back?? Why not approach him with the desire to be helpful? Why not approach him sincerely?
Why not express any concerns you might have with him in an honest, forthright manner, that might help yourself, potentially him (if any of it seems right to him – based on your description of him as being somebody who is sincere and wanting to help, I’d guess that he’d want to consider what you said – if done in kindness.)
Anyway, that was essentially what my last-post hissy fit was about.
I thought the way you were addressing him, as well as others loosely related to him – bordered on slander. I actually felt physical pain reading your posts -and thus tried to ID them early on, and then skip them for the most part…
(guess my technique didn’t work too well in the end huh???)
Anyway, when your comments started reaching farther then those areas (into the realm of Angels for example) – I just had the visceral sense of you being like a bull in a china shop – and HAD to get out of here.
Which, guess I did. 🙂
My last point in this post –
PLEASE know that not all people come to this site to debate. Some are aware that they can share a thought or two, and that that thought may reach someone who will resonate with it – or not.
Personally, sometimes I feel as if I’ve fallen into a lucky tub of butter (in terms of how much fun I get to have in creative areas, and in the realm of spirit and synchronicity) – and sometimes you just want others to have the chance to experience it too… as possible. We’re all different in so many different ways.
But the last thing that I want to do is spend time debating anything. Maybe pop up and share, but that’s about it (and nobody need agree – at least, until they one day fall in to that same tub of happy butter and go, what the hay? This really exists????? Wow life can be SOMETIMES glorious.)
xox.
And btw, just for good measure …
i bet there’s a whole lot of other tubs of happy somethin or others out there that i haven’t fallen in to yet…….
sounds sort of fun thought.
Dusky dark here now – but still time to ease into the eve. Thanks for reading all of my thoughts if ya got through them.
g’nite.
Entanglement does not allow superluminal signaling. Any experiment which shows superluminal signaling would tell you that quantum theory, or at least normal relativistic quantum field theory, is wrong (always a possibility, but no such experiment has ever been performed.)
That being said entanglement is very strange, representing a correlation which is stronger than that which can be reproduced by people doing classical things and communicated slower than the speed of light. In other words, if you try to explain the quantum world by a classical world which doesn’t allow superluminal signaling, you will fail. If you think about this for a second, you’ll realize that the converse of this is not that quantum theory allows superluminal signaling.
Most physicists just say “accept that you cannot explain the world classically” and then carry on doing their calculations. This is a very pragmatic response. However quantum entanglement really is strange and so thinking hard about it has led people to realize that it allows different power computers than our current computers. That’s what I work on: quantum computation.
Crapzolla is just a word I made up which is kind of like “ah crap.” Pardon my language.
Good god. Slander? You need to lighten up. You take things far too seriously.
Yeah, I’m feeling the unconditional love now.
Have you looked at this whole site? Bacon’s whole resume is on here, his research papers (with his name on them), the work he is doing, etc.
And what is this if-Dyer-wants-to-contact us business? I don’t know, doesn’t sound like both feet are on the ground. Some of the occasional lofty remarks made here, as if we were saying some really important things, are just laughable. If Dyer feels any of this is important enough (he probably has better things to do like meditating on his navel), he can post a message and I’ll email him. It’s that simple.
Regarding Hay House and publishers, I really asked that question in sincerity. But it sounds like you freelance write and are not commissioned. (I’m not saying anything bad about freelancing at all.)
One of the responsibilities of any non-fiction book publisher is fact checking. This is what got James Frey’s publisher, “In a Million Pieces,” in so much trouble. Just look at some Hay House’s offerings: a series on “angelic therapy,” which is counseling for your relationship with your guardian angels. Are you kidding me? I’m sorry, but that kind of nonsense is just not right to peddle to an unsuspecting market. They are making money off a gullible audience, which is in no way moral–and yet what they claim so much to be. I feel no need to apologize for calling out what is clearly a rip off.
Hey JQ,
although I don’t read auras (but I also don’t discount that there is the potential that some people MIGHT) – here’s what I’m thinkin after your last 2 posts:
i’m thinkin it’s bright, shiny and sparkly – cuz your last 2 posts seemed playful and fun.
Hey!!! Good!!!!!!!!
And frankly, reading a post from you that talks about your wife, and your youngest GRANDDAUGHTER (congrats!) just makes me feel happy.
So, i’m gleanin that my aura is a lil bit brighter now too.
Anyway…….
gotsta-go. Wanna sit in the meadow so some butterflys can land on me (never works if i chase ’em).
ps tried to post this comment at exactly the same time as your post about the image popped up – and my post disappeared (oh, it was much more entertaining and better in every way than this one 😉 )
pss there is a saying in the foyer/entrance to my home “never look down on anyone unless you are helping him up.”
Good words to read i think.
Me, my wife, and my youngest granddaughter. Last year. Anything else you’ll just have to glean from my aura.
I embedded an anchored image link, but it didn’t take. Oh well.
A quite sleepy me (who just read Kate’s post) adds … very much so!
Well, I guess this is the only way I can do it. Again, wife, me, granddaughter.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r317/Retromingent/Nov_2006.jpg
What a wonderful picture!
~ Kate
Ditto, (the picture). Welcome back HavAgr8Day.
Looks like it was a calm weekend. Nothing exciting took place.
JQP, thanks for the photo. Now we can place a face to the name. Thanks for the link to Tesla band also.
I have a suggestion. Let’s pick an interesting and controversial subject and debate. Actually, let everyone who is interested, propose 3 subjects and we can vote and pick one out of the bunch.
Let’s make it a productive debate. I don’t have much time to dedicate to this forum so for me every hour counts.
Jodee,
Did you have a chance to research the info on Tom Beardon’s site?
What do you think?
I just got the 2 DVDs and am eager to set some time aside to watch.
Some of you already know all that you are about to read here but it looks like a few on this website think they are “KNOWLEDGE” itself!
The more we know, the more we find out how much more there is yet to know and consequently just how much we truly dont know.
Some people on this website critize that which has no “scientific basis” AS IF science DEFINES reality when it merely tries to understand it and live with it and it is ALWAYS in a state of learning. I will call this type of arrogant thinking SCIENTIFIC FUNDAMENTALISM.
This is no different than the Christian fundamentalists who reject any idea that has no basis on the Bible.
If we compare REALITY with an Elephant, Science has a hold of the Elephant’s head, Religion has a hold of the Elephants heart and New Agers have a hold of the Elephant’s back, ALL the while each group is screaming at the other, LOOK AT ME, I have a hold of REALITY and THIS is what it looks like!!!
One day each self labeled individual will find that just like an elephant, REALITY was much bigger than any one group could put its arms around!
While I have an appreciation for science and I have had some serious spiritual experiences (enough to send you know who among you asking for PROOF or better yet a Straight Jacket) I can see “that which I DONT know” spanning out without end in the horizon just as when the first explorers left land and the farther they sailed the more ocean they saw and the more unknown territory they became aware of!
The UNIVERSE is a pretty DARN BIG THING! Who among us mere mortals can say they have IT contained within the relatively microscopic confounds of their small and underutelized brains!
I include my brain in the description here as well, I am NO BETTER and of course, NO WORSE!
Good Luck and may you be at peace with the fact that:
No matter how much you think you know, WHAT YOU DONT KNOW is actually infinitely more than what you actually DO know!
I am at peace with it. We are all ignorant and we are all wise in our own ways. Growing and learning are Life’s infinite journey and none of us can truthfully claim to have arrived! I found out through this website that to debate or argue personal life experiences and beliefs is like arguing which country or food is better with someone who has not lived in our country or tasted our food and who has NO PLANS on doing so either!
Good Luck y’all!
Well, i’m not against y’all debating – just, i’ll skim read those parts :).
However, JQ, just so you know – i think a lot of people join the intention, thoughts… action.
I’d guess most people on this blog do so.
In terms of my action (oh, bore… more ’bout me, i’ll try to keep it short…enuf) –
I volunteered in children’s hospitals when I was an undergraduate – volunteered in homeless shelters for women and children (primarily) during grad school (this extended through the ten years I worked on an inpatient hospital unit – because having had a relationship with the woman minister that ran one particular unit, the unit I later worked on essentially adopted that shelter.)
Anyway, I could go on and on with that – however, I still think the other side is important as well.
One of my best friends is a trauma and vascular surgeon – and goes to Mexico fairly regularly to volunteer medical services. But if he was an ogre and made the people around him cry – I would think he was doing something wonderful, and something sort of sad.
Helping others, helping oneself (I agree with what you wrote about that), and allowing yourself happiness (something for me that helps me to have a full cup when I dip into it to help others) all seem interwoven for me.
BTW, I chose to get a grad. degree in a medical field because I can be so empathetic to the suffering around me, that it seemed easier to encorporate that into part of my life’s work – because then it eased my heart and actually helped me.
Guess that’s also the point: don’t think I’ve ever helped anyone where I haven’t felt like I’ve gotten as much if not more back.
Still, I love creativity and writing. And I think you can give to others in many, many ways/shapes/forms. Writing a story that ultimately comforts, uplifts, or inspires self-acceptance in someone – is a great gift as well in my book. (PUN not intended, but sorta fun anyway.)
I like to think that individuals can give in all sorts of ways. (A woman at Petco gave me a lovely gift tonight when I was there buying special food my little kitty; who is having some struggles. Her warmth, connection, and conversation left me feeling strengthened.
I’m glad to know about all of the people you know who help others.
Still, concrete action IS helpful. I believe sharing encouragement and offering a smile and a shoulder (intention: love) is also helpful.
Just thoughts.
Nothin to debate on.
A question about debates though…
(truly) for me – writing in here is only a good use of my time when I feel like I’m sharing something positive. Otherwise, I start to feel like I’m sitting in a cave with a bunch of people discussing life – when the big ole real thang is right out the door. And I wanna be IN life.
So, the question is: for those who enjoy debating (as if there is a right and wrong answer) – what is the enjoyment in it? Are you really seeking to convince? To share? To educate? Or is it more of an enjoyable recreational experience (that maybe I just don’t relate to?)
Me, headin to sleeeeeeeeeeeee
p. 🙂
It’s funny about absurdities – in my experience – something only seems logically absurd – until you actually (and potentially accidentally) experience the reality of it concretely in your own life. Then, it seems to me, that you either have to stretch yourself open wide enough to encorporate the reality of the concrete, still not completely knowable – experiences – or you shut yourself down so that you can maintain reassuring sense of knowing everything there is to know, blah, blah, blah.
If you woke up tomorrow, and began having weekly, witnessed, psychic experiences – would the concept be absurd to you? Perhaps after you ran and had your mental health checked (delusional? scratch. psychotic? scratch. Diagnosis: reality intact.) would you debate about the existence of psychic experience? Or would you not waste your breath and look elsewhere….
must. go. night. night. now.
My goodness. Yes, I have to agree, “New Agers have a hold of the Elephant’s back…”
o no. i fibbed. lastly, i related to a lot of what Whoknows wrote.
And Hana Girl, HUG right back atcha.
NOW. TO. FALL. INTO. DREAMS……..
I’ll repeat it again, some people want to debate the merits of countries without ever venturing off the borders of their own land.
Actually, you’re a bit mistaken. I’ve ventured and it turned out to be Disneyland, so I came home.
If only you New Agers knew what I was doing for a paralyzed women in Texas, you’d never bug me again. But I won’t elaborate because it is about action and not intention.
Let me try to impart some life experience. I was a teenager in the sixties and grew up in California through the whole love generation movement. However, those professing to love everyone rarely actually did any real work to help anyone. They just talked about it. Then later came my personal inspiration. Much, much later in life I worked for a corporate VP who was the meanest SOB I’ve ever known. He typically would make people cry (literally) in meetings and wouldn’t take anything from anyone. After working for him for a while, I come to learn that every year he takes 3 full months off (not for vacation, mind you) to go to Costa Rica and build homes for the poor. (This was somebody with a lot of money.) One year, he even wound up in a Costa Rica jail doing so because of a car accident. He never talked about this charity he did. He kept it a secret. (It was an accident I found out.) He never preached to others about giving to the poor. He never espoused to love everyone. But come to find out, he just did it. I started doing the same with him. Then I met others like him.
In my life, I have found those who talk about love and charity typically (not always, mind you, but typically) actually do the least. You see, you really can’t help others unless you have the means to do so (money, free time, etc.). You have to help yourself first.
So, that’s my speech about charity and how it relates to self-interest. Keep the kind words and just do more.
“I have a suggestion. Let’s pick an interesting and controversial subject and debate. Actually, let everyone who is interested, propose 3 subjects and we can vote and pick one out of the bunch. Let’s make it a productive debate.”
But the problem that I see is that even with this 1st subject “Wayne Dyer and his intentionality quantum physics mutterings” is that an actual productive debate hasn’t really occurred.
Granted, there’s been lots of conversation. But, the parties from the opposing sides haven’t agreed upon a basic starting point, a common definition of terms, beginning premises, nothing.
No one from either side has advanced a claim that has then been conceeded or refuted by the other side. No movement of the argument.
All we have so far is people expressing their opinions to each other. That’s not a meaningful debate. That’s people each taking their turns on the soapbox.
This is why Dyer’s relentless self-promotion bothers me. Chopra’s, too. Yes, they do good things, but I have met those who I believe do a lot more. Further, those I admire put action before all else. In fact, that was one of David Bacon’s original comments in the forum. “No talk of action.” Why so much emphasis on the thoughts and emotion when it is the action that really helps.
I vote on the dihedral hidden subgroup problem.
Honestly, the only real way to have a debate is with those who have been trained in debate. By that I mean people who understand rhetoric (true sense of the word) and logical fallacies (I think Aristotle identified 127 of them) that most fall into. If you can debate and not get into circular reasoning and such, then it really can be productive. But if you don’t know how to look for those pitfalls, then it inevitably becomes emotional and, as you say, winds up as turns on the soapbox. It’s like anything else, it takes practice.
So, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but I’m not holding out much hope here.
You’re not raining on my parade. I was the skunk at the garden party on this conversation from the get go:)
“The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topcica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know they possess sufficient intelligence and self respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and to yield to it; and finally to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear to being proved in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarecely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
SOOOO JohnQPublic:
The lesson you learned from your life experience is that mean SOBs or intellecutal bullies who do good works part time and in secret are more honest and better role models than anyone who talks about love and kindness publicly?
Action precludes talk? If you DO then you can not TALK about it? Why do you talk about science then?
Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Budah, Jesus, and millions of others who dedicated their lives to being like them must therefore be fakes because they TALKED about love and kindness publicly?
Do you really believe the world would be a better place if there were less people publicly talking about love and kindness and more people who were being jerks 9 months out of the year but did great works in secret the remaining 3 months?
I will tell you this, while you may never forget your hero’s 3 months out of the year of secret kindness, the world is full of those who will never forget the remaining 9 months out of the year of his public meanness. EVERYTHING we DO AND SAY counts, EVERY DAY.
I NOTICED YOU ASKED FOR KINDNESS FROM ME AND OTHERS, BUT YET YOU COULDNT WAIT TO PICK 3 WORDS OUT OF MY ORIGINAL POST TO TAKE YET ANOTHER JAB AT NEW AGERS WHEN MUCH OF IT APPLIED TO YOU!!
Where is your kindness and intellectual humility on this site? Where are your posts acknowledging that there is much you simply DONT know?
I read the posts JQP and it is clear that you are unaware that time and time again you come off as an intellectual snob and bully with much derrogatory and condecending to say (much like your SOB hero) and I can see that you derive a sense of power from it. I KNOW YOU HAVE A GOOD HEART, the question is:
Why do you ask for kindness from others when you have no hesitation withholding it yourself at the first opportunity?
Here is another question for you, how much time have you actually seriously spent in the personal lab of life rigorously giving meditation, prayer, yoga, acupuncture or any kind of religious or even new age practice an open minded and OBJECTIVE test to see if YOU find something you can not explain through convetional logic and scientific wisdom?
Being that you are a fan of scientific method which hinges on experimentation and you say you ventured out of your own “land” and it turned out to be “Disney Land”, I have another question for you: If Thomas Edison experimented with light the way you have experimented with spiritual “phenomena”, would he have discovered the light bulb?
If you say that you have honestly and seriously been experimenting with spiritual phenomena then you are missing something BIG in your experimental approach and you are just like the scientist who is better cut out to be a theorist rather than an experimental scientist.
Instead of taking the time it takes to READING 300 books a year, I spent years personally doing and experimenting with a variety of spiritual “phenomena” and I found that without a shred of doubt there IS such a thing as SPIRIT and there are plenty of actual life experiences that fall outside the limited domains of our physical brain and 5 senses. Conventional science is still in denyal about anything spiritual because not everyone has these experiences and mainstream science can not control/influence it at will and apply its conventional methods to it and measure it with any kind of electronic gadget yet to be invented. What science finds itself saying is that HUMAN EXPERIENCE outside the lab is not “PROOF” of HUMAN EXPERIENCE, for human experice to be TRUE, “we the scientists” must be able to apply our methods to it and separate the experience from the experiencer in order to accept it as scientifically valid!?!?!
Your true agenda and your unkind feelings towards new agers and religious people alike (well anyone spiritual) is well documented on this site. You may be unaware that being a SCIENTIFIC FUNDAMENTALIST makes you an unkind person to others who dont share your atheist views and your selective love and unquestioned belief for the “scientific”.
Fundamentalists of any kind are not people without love, but people with same amount of love as everyone else who choose to primarily RESERVE their love for a very limited subset of the population, people who are just like them.
More often than you realize, the “intellectually superior” mask you wear hides the kind and humble man behind it.
I know you will likely read this right now as a personal attack on you and if you do then you will miss the point once again.
I am not expecting anything from you JQP, I write this for others to read and to counteract some of the negative effects of the anti-spiritual propaganda you have been so passionately delivering here.
I also realize that I can not stop you from writing about your anti-spiritual beliefs as if they were FACTS anymore than you can stop Wayne Dyer or Deepak Chopra from doing so either no matter how hard you try.
So in the end, READER BEWARE.
No, the lesson is this: the ones who talk about charity the most usually don’t deliver. I don’t think Jesus falls into that category.
I never asked for kindness from anyone here, I suggested civil discourse.
I don’t care about anyone’s kind heart. It’s what you do that matters.
My goodness you make some lofty claims. You probably need to replace your caps-lock key now.
Jodee,
hello :). No, I don’t really have the stomach or the patience for this conversation – very often.
I don’t do a lot of parsing words on this site – cuz when i post, i try to do so quickly (or i regret the time i have spent).
In terms of my slander comment – the casual definition is simply – to circulate false, discrediting/defamitory rumors – and such rumors CAN have a very negative effect on a person – when the rumors are spread using the internet. (Trust me on this one thing: I have a friend who has written a highly used university text book on public relations and the media – and he would highly concur that people can read a bit of something on the internet – especially if they are from out of the country – and, without the desire to do some extensive time consuming research – have that piece of information effect them.)
Point: What I was referring to regarding JQ’s distressing posts were very specific comments that regarded Dyer, and his publisher/previous publisher/and their relationships. Having been immersed in the book making world for quite a few years – I have never heard/read what JQ asserted in those posts. They were factual statements, phrased in (for me) a derogatory way (I’m not going to repeat them here) – that, as far as the facts that I know of (through people who work in different publishing houses) were false. Period.
Those were the posts I was referring to – and they came very near to when I jumped out of here.
Also, the funny thing is: what also happened at that time was that JQ made some comments about the writing process (creative) – that made absolutely no sense to me. I won’t go any further, because I don’t have a desire to embarrass JQ – that isn’t my point. But for me, when he made those comments (again, stated so factually) – it concerned me even more – because I thought “Woah, what if there’s a whole lot of what he is stating that is that far off?” JQ, you refer to facts etc, but when you’ve talked (Otay, Jodee 🙂 WRITTEN) about writing – (and not the clinical/professional journal sort – but the creative sort) – I generally feel that the words you use reflect a real lack of knowledge in the area. However, it doesn’t bother me – because I don’t think you need to feel the pressure to be the expert of all things all the time. And like I said, for me, running a long a hamster wheel (in terms of debating ALL things while sitting at a computer screen) is not productive.
So Jodee, I live in a beautiful area – about a mile from the Santa Monica mountains, and about fifteen miles from the Pacific ocean. I have two professions: consulting in the health field, and writing. And I have a lot of people whom I love in my life. So many amazing things to do and learn. There’s a center about ten miles up the road where I can go listen to a Nobel Peace Prize winner speak quite frequently (part of their speaker series) – and I try to take advantage of all that life offers me at this point. So spending lots of time in here addressing random debates – doesn’t make sense for me.
And about debating – so funny 🙂 – I only scanned the debate y’all were having ’bout allopathic medicine etc. – and, (BLAH BLAH BLAH) as someone who has a grad degree in a medical field – I felt no need to jump in. I’m not a system defender. Most of the people I know who work within the more traditional western medical profession are not either (that includes some surgeons). But like Bacon here, my training in that field requires lots of consistency and generalization of practice – which has it’s own sets of limitations. My point is – I’d never deprive myself of seeking or utilizing other forms of health care. (The field I work in is PM&R – physical medicine and rehabilitation). Anyway, my point is – although I work in that field – I was very glad to move into consulting – because that allowed me to use the parts of my training that I felt allowed me to offer the most to others – and to not emphasize the areas that I didn’t find to be authentically helpful (after a decade of shared clinical experiences). Again, sowwy, cuz i jump around – can’t stand spending too much time here. But the point is – I would want all the choices available to me. And I haven’t studied your field – so I don’t really know very much about it. But I certainly wouldn’t discount it. Thus, I just felt no need to debate anything. Point ad nauseum: 😛
I see a lot of strengths and weaknesses in any system. I love to cull the strengths, and minimize the weakness as much as possible.
Anyway, I actually popped up in here after googlin’ ’round a bit trying to see if I could find something that would help me to help others for whom I consult. They represent a diverse group religiously – and people of different religions are often in close proximity – and to serve them the best that I can, means to help them with their own discomfort – or ??? – confusion over how to share close physical spaces with others (while trying to heal) who have such different views. Thus – and this is funny – I randomly thought of Dyer’s Inspiration talk – and on his guests – and googled him thinking that something might click somewhere that would be helpful.
And I ended up here 🙂 🙂 🙂
Well, yes, it has been helpful for me internally in gaining some of what I was looking for.
Also – when I popped up here – and saw Bacon’s post – I never thought I’d stay around. Regardless of what he said/no!!!! oh no!!! I mean WROTE 😉 I felt a fondness for him – and for others of his ilk :). As I said waaaayyyyy up in the posts, I have a beloved brother-in-law who is a very creative, excellent scientist (Ivy league phd if that impresses anyone 🙂 – and he initially sat pretty firmly in Bacon’s camp. However, he and I actually never debated. (Probably cuz he wanted to marry my sis and knew how much we love each other 😉 – however, even though we never debated, we would have lots of normal talks like families do – and within about six months, he had one foot firmly stepping out into unknown territory. Now, I think he lives everywhere. I love his passion for science and experimentation – discovery. I find it extremely creative and very similar to my creative writing process (the straight jacket for me in the writing process comes in the last stages – copy proofing, some editing, etc.etc.). But sometimes the things he says – (and he’d never consider himself new age – just someone who speaks his thoughts honestly as he has them) – make me go “wow, that was an amazing view on that.”
Anyway, during most of this post, I have felt like I’ve been wasting too much time – cuz my heart and mind really need to be elsewhere – thus the guilt that I may be even wasting other’s time right now. All these words.
And so, until I feel like something more compelling urges me to pop up in here (it probably will) I’ll probably pop out for a bit.
This post has felt really DRY and dull – and at the very least, i hope to be slightly entertaining. 🙂
I will say one last thing though – it is funny that JQ calls me new age. I’ve said repeatedly that my experiences with being psychic are almost always linked to my creative life. The fact that I’ve dreamt manuscripts in my sleep – does that make me New Age? Or does the fact that I’ve dreamt about a manuscript in my sleep (after praying for help with an introduction the night before) make me new age?
I don’t label myself. I just deal with myself :).
That’s usually enough for me.
But truthfully, I grew up in a Catholic household, believe in Christ – and have no desire to discount anyone else’s religion or beliefs.
I do hold LOVE up as the greatest goal.
And for me – intention – does matter. Because if I’m doing something for someone because I want something from them – YUCKO!!! If I’m doing something for someone because loving energy is flowing through me – Bingo. And even with goals, I’m pretty sure that Bacon wouldn’t be doing the work he’s doing if he hadn’t somewhere, somehow set the intention (probably after he found he loved that area). Hmmm. Remembering Dyer’s talk on INSPRIRATION … just remembering him saying that (loosely repeated) living an inspired life requires living in spirit. I sort of take it that Bacon loves what he does, follows that love – and is thus living in spirit (oh Bacon, let that spirit keep growing…….).
And maybe that is what “Spiritual Energy is the Energy of Abundance,” means… when you do something that you love (I’ll connect that to your heart here) – you are in spirit – and I think Bacon’s creating some abundance around him.
Go Bacon!!! 🙂
For me that statement rings true in that way for me. I originally had two author/writing mentors (very lucky me!!) – and both always said “You are so prolific.” I love creative writing – it sort of owns me really – and when I open myself to it –
the stories come like waterfalls. Awake, asleep… absolute abundance.
Anyway, also know that many mystics, many saints, many lovely humans – have talked about things like the soul, the spirit, loving ENERGY, the energies that flow through our body – way before anybody ever talked about new age.
So, however you want to define me, otay. 🙂
But for me, I’m just lil ole curious me.
Tryin to live up to the life i’ve been given by living it – loving it – and keepin my eyes, heart, and mind wide open to it.
Quaaa (or for Hana, however a Frog would say “ciao for now.”) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Very true words, mÃ¥nesteiner. “…only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know they possess sufficient intelligence and self respect not to advance absurdities.” Unfortunately, you can see from the WhoKnows (ex-Jodee, I believe) last post that absurdity is in the eye of the beholder.
Regarding “the parade,” I was only referring to your request for vote, not your comments in general. If anyone actually agrees to go forward with a vote, then I still am voting for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem. It is one of the issues Bacon cites for quantum computing, so I think is in-line with the website.
By the way, nothing about this website supports spirituality. If you’re looking to resonate with others who agree, why here?
It took me so long to post that last forever post that i missed some cute ones (Hana – your’s, JQ, you calling Dyer a friend – Ummmm, WOWWWWWW. Happy!!!!)
bu-bye now 🙂
Said with the utmost affection:
“JQ, Get Out Of That Office. Get Out of That Office…” (Said with the accent from the movie I never saw – where some crankcaller was scaring a babysitter? No? But do ya know what i mean???)
I mean, just rip off your clothes and run around the woods nakid for a bit.
Anything. Ya got to get out of that office!!!!
And so many kids waiting for you to help them even more (and lovely stray dogs)…
“Get Out Of The….”
XOX!!!
(Playful!!!!!!)
GENUINE (my caps are stuck, what can I say) kind actions do not flow out of an unkind heart so we cant separate the two anymore than you can separate the left side of your body from the right.
You are quick to judge others but take issue when others judge you. Very interesting…
By the way I have been a New Ager, a Christian, and a scientist in my life and I dont consider myself just a “New ager” as you were quick to label me but actually the sum all three.
If each of these areas was a country, I can say I have actually lived in each one long enough to appreciate why people choose to make a home for themselves in either camp.
Its anyone’s choice to decide which camp they want to make their home, but to be bashing one camp because you choose not to live there is not a reflaction on the other camps, just a reflection of your own biases and preferences.
Each group has its own answers and holds a portion of the truth and each has its own shortcomings and anyone that pretends their camp is above others and without lack is at the very least being biased and not objective.
BYE FOR NOW
“Why do you talk about science then?” Because science delivers; it is action. Every time I turn on my microwave, every time I get on a jet, every time I type on my computer, every time I look through my catadioptric telescope, every time I talk on my cell, et cetera. To me, science is true magic and does not require belief to demonstrate itself.
I was not referring to you as a new ager, I was referring to havAgr8Day, JoeG and a few others. You in no way strike me as a new ager. They tend not to yell in their writing.
Yes science works, but also “new age” works, and religion works that is why they are still around and will continue to be long after we are all gone, whether you like it or not.
THINK WHAT YOU WILL. Like I said I wouldnt expect any different.
HERE ARE SOME MORE UPPER CASE LETTERS SINCE YOU LIKED THEM SO MUCH, ONE LAST TIME!!!!
I don’t know about you, but I am not going to step one foot on a plane built on New Age idealism.
What has religion given us but a bunch followers killing each other over their interpretation of divine will? Even you said you walked away from it.
WhoKnows, since you’re a scientist you’re then well trained in calculus. Any comment on some of the research papers here?
David Bacon: I saw the Kernighan Ritchie book pop up on your random book selection. Very nice.
havAGr8Day: Your list of charities is impressive. ( I mean that and is not to be taken as sarcasm.)
Part of the reason I put the example of the example of my friend’s work in Costa Rica seems to be lost here: living in horrid conditions of villagers, construction work for six days a week for three long months in malaria ridden territory cannot not be summarily dismissed. It is uncommon. That action speaks very loudly. You do not have to align intention with action to make truly big differences. All that is required is two hands.
Anything that requires belief as a premise to experience is indistinguishable from fraud.
JQP
Once again when you dont like the direction of the conversation you revert back to your “intellectual superiority” pattern. Sorry, I am not going to give you the pleasure of a scientific debate and get off the subject.
Anything requiring Belief to be experienced is undistinguishable from FRAUD? Sports must be fraud then since all athletes must first believe they can accomplish a goal before they actually train for it! There are many fields in life where the first step to success is belief. Notice I said the first step of experience, not the ONLY step.
If you dont first believe you can acoomplish anything (yes in the absence of proof) then you will never even try.
Regarding the pitfalls of religion, yes this is true but lets not forget to thank science for nuclear bombs and all others weapons of mass destruction and other technology that threathen our very existence on Earth. Every field has its own flaws.
You’re in a scientific website.
Science did not order the bombs, politicians did. Science definitely did not pick the cold war fight and many from that group opposed it. Additionally, the there is no bloodshed over if science is right or not.
I’m not claiming any intellectual superiority. I never said I was a scientist. I am claiming to be well-read and educated.
By the way, Whoknows, did you read the little joke I posted (far above)? I know its purpose was opaque, but it was a nod in direct agreement with you about the cultural bias toward women.
But if you’re claiming to be scientist, then by definition you are claiming formal training in scientific procedures. Otherwise the title would have no meaning because then just anyone could claim it. You cannot be a scientist because you had a good night’s sleep at an Express Holiday Inn.
But, actually, I am fascinated by the research here (Washington University). Quantum computers promise some pretty remarkable things. Right now I’m trying to determine if the HSP problem is a hurdle or a test of computational achievement such as the Turning test.
Oh no Jodee – please don’t just be the flip side of the JQ coin (on a bad day, not a good day).
ADHD? Serious question? Never. Have I worked with children and adults with it? Yes.
But I do allow myself to be very loose in here.
So many conclusions that you jumped to so quickly…
I said I grew up in a Catholic household – not that I grew up in the Catholic Church. I went to public schools, and never confirmed the Catholic faith as my faith.
Anyway, I think y’all should go with Zero’s idea.
Maybe I’ll just pop up now and then and share some interesting examples of synchronicity, or psychic experience. (Btw, when I refer to psychic experience, I’m referring to psychic experience, not dreaming about manuscripts.)
And the nice thing about my experience with them –
is that they very often occur with other individuals around (or involve them), so it’s never an only me having to make an interpretation about them. It’s generally pretty concrete.
And about what you wrote about dreams… Yep. Ditto.
Jodee, one thing that amazes me – it’s almost incomprehensible to me that an individual would literally state: “That’s why Christ was invented.”
This YOU know for a fact.
Hmmmm.
I’ve never known any human being to make that statement; regardless of value statement.
Hope, for your sake that you’re right. Otherwise, what might you be missing?
Gotta go – I have two clients to see, and a 9/11 Peace Fundraiser to attend this evening (and some cleanin’ and showerin’ to do.)
I took Calculus 26 years ago and didnt use it ever again in my field so I am rusty in this area. I have a bachellors degree in science and I am no longer active in the field. As I said, I have been a “scientist”, past tense and now only read about it so I wouldnt use the term in present tense. I am aware that there is much about current scientific knowledge that I am not up to date on and I am not qualified to speak of and this is fine with me and this is all I have to say on this topic.
JPQ
Regarding you comments about this being a website aimed at scientific discussions, you have my aplogies. I was thrown off by the sponsor links below:
“Dr. Wayner Dyer (try this free spiritual…)”
“Perkl-Light Energy Spa (Affordable bioenergenic…)”
“How to attract abundance”
and so forth…
When you read the opening comment being discussed at the top of this page, it appears this was a website discussing the topic of the validity of Dr. Wayne Dyer’s teachings instead of site aimed at discussing strictly scientific subjects.
If this is a website aimed at discussing life in general then it holds my interest, otherwise I just lost it!
This is the premise: “So here is the real question. Why doesn’t the word Hamiltonian achieve as high a standing as energy? Or at least the Lagrangian, for gosh sake! And why no talk of the action. I mean that’s my favorite quantity, the action! No eigenvectors, no eignenvalues, no renormalization group. If you’re going to talk to me, and convince me of your self-help mumbo jumbo, you’d better be talking my launguage!”
And this is our host: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/dabacon/index.html
Science did not order the bombs but science sure did develop them nonethless and so it bears responsibility for its mistakes just as religion does. There are scientists who have just as much innocent blood in their hands as religious extremists do.
Science is a double edge sword just like religion, it can be used for good or for bad depending on the minds that drive them. Neither one is just good or just bad as you previously implied religion to be.
MY LAST POSTING (I have to use UPPER case again!)
I see people who have come and gone on this website (and I am about to join them) and yet JPQ you are still going strong.
JPQ, I am sincerely impressed that a family man like yourself who remains educated and I am sure works for a living and is also involved in charity work still finds enough time available in the day to keep posting comments on these websites apparently without end…
You have mastered time management and my hat goes off to you!
I know I couldnt keep this up so I am not going to try!
I GOT TO GO NOW…I WISH YOU WELL…
ZerO, I’ve been wanting to get back to you regarding my guess of your age. You were correct on both counts: it was both the age of your daughter and your attitude that had me guessing your age as much younger. You remind me of one of my sons-in-law. At 22, he is completely unthreatened by new information/ideas or things he doesn’t know. He happily and eagerly investigates, learns, and if something is of value to him, makes it his own. I love that about him. It’s an admirable trait.
I’m not the least bit sensitive about my age. I’m 51 (just), the mother of 2 surviving children, both girls, and grandma to 5, soon to be 6.
I have not yet had an opportunity to look up the info on Tom Beardon. We’re still in peek season here on the farm and this past weekend all the kids and grandkids were here. It was awesome and a much needed break. Took my almost 5 year old grandson out on the pond and taught him how to row a boat. Big thrill for him – last time they were here, I taught him how to drive and work the track hoe and he always gets a tractor lesson from Grandpa Jerry. Who knows? Maybe he’ll decide he likes farming when he’s older, then he’ll have some skills to build on. 🙂 Would love to talk with you about home schooling, but this is probably not the best forum for that.
No, I’m semi-retired. I only work when I need to. I was pretty lucky in my career. So, I don’t have that much to do between consulting work. (Mostly my work is giving advice to computer companies.) My son is grown and has long been away. It’s a big empty nest. (That’s my granddaughter in the picture.) It’s just been the wife and me for a long time. She retired over 20 years ago when I started making some real strides in my career. So, like I said before, I’ve got too much time on hands, to be sure.
My parting remark on you last religion comment: What did religion bring to the world table? Where is its tangible benefits in my day-to-day life?
Okay, JQP, I’m totally cracking up that you think I have(had) a new alias by the name of WhoKNows. WhoKnows wrote a lot of things that I would probably say. We are, however, two separate entities. Too bad. Looks like you got tag-teamed. (Exactly what would be your definition of civil discourse be, BTW?)
As someone who has fled religion entirely, I find it just as prevalent in the scientific community. It’s seems to be the knee jerk response for people when they can’t explain something they observe. Darwinistic Evolution is a prime example: It is neither demonstrable nor observable, yet highly intelligent men in the field of science cling to it as though it were fact and attempt to explain what IS observable and demonstrable through the colored glasses of their religious belief that we crawled out of primordial ooze, and that our ancestors were apes.
I love the joke. I actually did get the implications of it. Your intention wasn’t the least bit obscure to me. But as the best math teacher I ever had used to say, “It isn’t obvious unless you see it.” Smart man.
Evolving lifeforms are not only observable but documented. Natural selection has evolved a number of species within documented history.
Oh, well, I guess the joke’s on me. I thought you two were the same.
havAgr8Day, I have to wonder if you have the stomach for this discussion. And BTW, when it’s in writing, it’s libel, not slander, and both must be accompanied by an intent to do harm. In the absence of malice, someone’s negative opinion about someone else doesn’t qualify in either category just because it appears to be mean spirited. The one damaged by such speech would also have to demonstrate that damage. So, if what JQP has said about Dyer actually results in significantly lower sales of his books, attendance at his talks, etc, AND he could prove that JQP was directly responsible, then he would have to additionally prove that JQP INTENDED harm – that his intent was malicious. Even if he could prove even that, Dyer would have a hard time making his case since he defines intent as a force in the universe, and then “teaches” his students to “access it”. Since JQP, according to Dyer’s own teachings and supposed beliefs, has merely engaged the “source” to accomplish that which he set out to do, JQP’s defense would be that he was merely a more successful Dyer student than others. Hmmm. Don’t you just love a good conundrum?!
One last thing for it slips my mind, Jodee. WhoKnows said, “…you asked me for kindness..”. The only time I did anything remotely like that was when I chimed in and asked Jodee for civility. So, that is what threw me. Now I don’t have any idea what they were referring to because I never addressed them.
What civility? Not yelling; not calling people ignorant.
There are no documented cases of metamorphic transformations from one species to another. The only documentable evolutionary changes are those which occure within a species, eg. average human height changes, length of toes, etc. Otherwise, the “links” are still missing. Strange, since the earth should be littered with them. We dug another 6 feet deeper in our wetland project and still didn’t find any, though.
Well, the hakkai crab comes to mind. But, yes, those that occur within a specie. Correct.
JQP said: “Regarding “the parade,†I was only referring to your request for vote, not your comments in general.”
Actually, that was ZerO’s request for a vote. I was responding to his suggestion of adding a new topic to debate.
“No, I’m semi-retired. I only work when I need to.” A Shangri-La I can only dream of. Cheers!
Ignorance is curable and nothing to be ashamed of, unless one chooses to remain that way. It is certainly not the same as stupidity, which is incurable, as it is a genetic intellectual deficiency. I believe what people generally refer to by both of these terms is really foolishness, which is sometimes curable and sometimes not, since a great deal of it depends on a person’s willingness to be wise, ie. to use the best way possible, (for the best outcome,) the knowledge to which one has been exposed. Wisdom comes with experience, but experience doesn’t always breed wisdom. Some people never learn from their experiences, and more’s the pity.
A sharp wit is also not the same as yelling. I’m not sure how one would determine yelling in a written forum, although I suppose “all caps” might come close.
Thanks, månesteiner. My apologies.
JQP: I am a psychologist (science?) and art therapist.
I feed about 50 animals twice a day (charity?).
Am I still welcome here?
P.S. Who would you debate with if everyone was a scientist?
P.S.2 Why Wayne Dyer (or Deepak Chopra for that matter). Why not someone/thing more “scientific”. Just think of the energy (” “) you’ve invested in that guy, or in his ideas.
Yes, most emotionally based outbursts (e.g. shouting) are syntactically expressed by caps and overuse of punctuation, normally. But, again, I was chiming in for someone else. It doesn’t bother me, though.
P.S.3 I vote for your grandaughter.
Good Night.
Gee, hanna, I didn’t mean to say anyone was unwelcome at all. I was specifically questioning the comment that I fell back on science when “I didn’t like the direction of the conversation.” I was merely pointing out that this was a science based forum to begin with and that that shouldn’t surprise anyone. I didn’t mean for anyone to leave, but someone did say they believed they wandered into the wrong place.
Regarding the “energy I’ve invested in that guy,” it’s funny but this actually a Dyer point. I saw something really good in what everyone thought was bad. And, moreover, makes a somewhat compelling philosophical point about purity of intention as it related to purity of action. I really haven’t said how much I invested in him anyway. But I do call him a friend. He’s interesting.
Well, thank you, hana.
The reason I can respond so frequently here is I have (for any computer enthusiasts) three Linux boxes (Ubuntu, Suse, and Fedora), and three Windows laptops in my office. So, with the multiple desktops provided by Linux (Linux gives you, typically, 4 desktop spaces per machine), I have a window up permanently on a number of discussion forums. And through the magic of a little wget code, it automatically scans the sites and notifies me when something new appears.
Hana:
“I feed about 50 animals twice a day (charity?).”
I think that’s awesome. I take in stray dogs as my only pets. (Well, I do have a conure.)
“Who would you debate with if everyone was a scientist?”
Science is debate by definition. That is what they do. It is never good enough to simply state something, because it will be beat to shreds by others. I know this not from being a scientist (as I said, I’m not), but from working with them what I was on contract with AT&T Bell Labs. There were a number of theoretical physicists that were on my image processing project. So, there’s never a lack of debate within its realm.
JQP:
Before I left for good I couldnt help to take one last look in and I am glad since I see there is something I WANT to explain.
I didnt mean “ignorant” as an insult, if you look at my first posting you will see I am first to admit that I AM ignorant about MOST areas of knowledge (which is an infinite field) myself. As Jodee pointed out (yes we are NOT one and the same!) I did not mean the word as “stupid” either.
From dictionary.com
ig·no·rance
–noun the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME
JQP (continued…)
With everything he knew about Physics, even Einstein was ignorant about most other sciences.
The scope and breath of all possible knowledge is so vast that EVERY human on this Earth is actually more ignorant than knowledgeable as a whole. Taking offense to this is denying what is so.
If you have NOT had ANY spiritual experiences at all (which misleads you to the conclusion that there is no such thing as Spirit) then this is an area you are simply ignorant of and there is just no way to sugar coat it any more than I can sugar coat that I am ignorant about the French language, immunobiology, and the list goes on and on.
Regarding my overuse of UPPER CASE, this is just MY style to emphasize words as I would in speach. If I could use Itelics on this website instead then I would, but the end result would be the same and was not coming from an attempt to scream through the computer!! IF I SOUNDED ANGRY, I WAS NOT!!! AS I WRITE THIS I AM ACTUALLY LAUGHING!!
See you cant always tell whats in a book by its cover!
AGAIN, I WISH YOU WELL JQP AND WHILE I DISAGREE WITH MANY OF YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND BELIEFS ON THE SUBJECTS OF SPIRITUALITY AND THE VALUE/NATURE OF RELIGION (which needs to be weighed not only in terms of whether is useful to JQP or to WhoKnows since we are not the only inhabitants in the planet), I DID NOT MEAN TO DISRESPECT.
Jodee, I wanted to say in parting I hope to have a friend who thinks like you one day! If I didnt have to get on with life right now I could have many interesting conversations with someone like yourself but time just keeps ticking away!
BYE NOW Y’ALL
Thanks for the number of sentiments. But, havAgr8Day, I travel an awful lot, so I do get out. (Thanks for the tip, I don’t think my neighbors would appreciate my ugly butt jiggling down the road–no woods here.)
Ah! No, sorry, I didn’t call Dyer a friend. I was referring that VP guy I mentioned.
WhoKnows, no disrespect taken. (But I still turn off my speakers when I read your entries, just in case.)
Nope, never had a spiritual experience. Only a certain select group ever tells me they have. Not sure that anything would have turned any better had I had one. And, oddly, (please don’t take this the wrong way as it is a broad generalization) most of those I’ve met who claim one don’t really seem all that happy in their lives. I’ve had employees who’ve claimed this, yet almost all of them actually lead unhappy lives. (Bosses can become a shoulder to cry on and you sometimes learn way more than you want to know about people.) Now, I’m not going to extrapolate that and paint you with that brush, but I will point out there are a number of things I come across that say I’m not the only one that sees that.
Regarding Dr. Bacon, his work being in-spirit. (scroll to “Quantum Peace” about 1/2 down. I like his sarcasm.)
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/
havAgr8Day, you were, at the very least, entertaining. Are you ADHD by any chance? You write just like some of my special ed kids did. I don’t mean that as an insult, either. We all have our limitations, despite what Dyer says. I just found my ADHD kids to be the most fun of any of the bunch I worked with – wonderfully wild imaginations. It was, however, my job to teach them how to be wordsmiths, thus my specific differentiation between libel and slander. Words mean things and when they are used in a sloppy way or carelessly, misunderstandings are bound to occur. I’m just glad I’m not your copy editor! Yikes!
“And maybe that is what ‘Spiritual Energy is the Energy of Abundance,’ means… when you do something that you love (I’ll connect that to your heart here) – you are in spirit…”
You have illustrated what some of us on this site find so objectionable: vague gelatinous statements open to individual interpretation that inevitably end in contradiction and circular logic, none of which can be quantified, (and therefore challenged on the basis of truth or lie,) all of which are part of an overall plan to make Dr. Dyer a wealthy man. This is the true mark of every TV evangelist out there. (I’m going out on a limb here. I haven’t actually watched ALL of them, but the 6 or 7 I’ve tuned into over the years certainly fit the bill.) And that’s how Dyer strikes me.
Having grown up in the Catholic church, I can see how you would think that things you think of in your dreams are some sort of psychic experience. That’s what religion does: interprets experience and observation with superstition and circular logic. That’s why Christ was invented – to fill the need to have an embodiment of mystery from which all other mysteries proceed.
But how about this explanation: Your brain is a supercomputer that works even when you’re sleeping. During those deeper brain wave periods of the dream state, it considers stored data and sorts it. (Literally, everything you’ve ever heard, read, seen, experienced, or even thought about is stored there. So, technically, you can’t really forget, you just can’t recall – can’t find the file, so to speak.) Sometimes your brain sorts the stored information into a nightmare, which reflects fear-based data. Sometimes it actually works out a problem or puts together a manuscript. This kind of activity has been measured (oh, please let’s don’t get into the whole “measure it/disturb it debate again…!) So, if you want to call that being in the spirit, go ahead, but really it’s just a natural process we don’t fully understand.
And BTW, I have my doubts about Dyer’s personal life as well. I note that he is basically surrounded by women (gullible?), having divorced two of them. As someone who’s been down that road before, these look like red flags to me.
There is too much static in this forum right now.
JQP, it seams to me that you constantly want to be in the center of attention. I think you intentionally irritate people or start arguments in order to be the focus of everyones attention. Your ego is blurring your vision.
I tried to bring the discussion to a concrete subject that everyone could have an input on but you keep on wanting to look “superior” by wanting to discuss a subject that you don’t even know is all about.
I could propose a subject that would be so far above your head that you wouldn’t even see it with your “scientific” telescope. This is not the point. If you think that you are such an educated and well read person then steer the discussion away from you and towards a specific subject, so we can discuss the subject rather than each other.
I want to get SOME benefit from the time I spent here. Lately my time has been wasted just listening to the static (no disrespect to anyone).
The slander charge: It is unlikely I will hurt any book sales for Dyer. It is more likely that someone will buy just to see what I’m talking about. (So, he should probably send me a small fee.) Additionally, it is not going to account to any defamation. Have you looked at the blogging world? have you spent a day on youtube? Just look at what happened to that poor kid who did “Chocolate Rain.” But, all that “slander” (and he has 7 million plus posts–a record–almost all making fun of him) got him was a spot on the Jimmy Kimmel show. I don’t he’s suing anyone. In fact, on the show he said he was “flattered” by some of the ridicule.
Finally, Dyer says in his latest book, “Open yourself to those who criticize you and listen.” So, it doesn’t sound like he’ll take any umbrage.
Remember, don’t sweat the small stuff. And this here is very small stuff.
Zer0, I tried. I’m the only one who voted. I will follow your lead.
Jodee, I just went through your posts. I’m going to hold off as Zer0 wants to change direction and I really do support him.
Jodee, thanks for sharing your personal info. Now I have a clearer image of you in my mind.
IF you have a chance check this out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4242030440208468502
JQP, for a lack of another subject why don’t you also check out this video and then we can discuss it. I haven’t watched it completely myself, I just found this site.
I love my nephew. Anyone want to quantify it?
Am in the midst of falling in love – wanna quantify that?
Just spoke with a fantastic artist beginning what appears to be a really interesting journey into his calling/profession. Hmmm, anyone want to quantify his passion for that?
Lots of people all around tonight – artists, writers, teachers (teachers who are uniting and forming a global peace exchange network, etc) – what’s the slice and diced value of that – anyone?
Lots of people, making lots of lovely contributions to the world. (Hmmm, didn’t notice a name-caller among the bunch. What’s the odds of that, anyone? Hundreds, and not one name caller I spoke with….)
People DOING STUFF – stuff that started in their imaginations and hearts – and, with a little elbow grease, becoming real, actual positive forces in the world.
I can’t, and don’t want to change a single one of you.
Ya wanna sit here, and debate with strangers?
I wish you the best.
Ya wanna name call, declare yourself expert of it all? Ya wanna think you know the answers to it all?
I’m just goin’ to headin’ off to continue doin’ some of it all – in the real world. With real people. Face to face. With tolerance, intelligence, and courtesy.
Can’t change anyone. Don’t want to (especially some of the bright lights in here).
But I will say one last thing – “That’s why Christ was invented.” Gosh, I think you need to take that information out into the real world in a real way – because there are a lot of jews (who believe he was a false profit), christians (who believe he was beyond a profit), and sunni and shiite muslims (as well as b’hai) who view him as a profit. And all of these faiths, their historians/records, have all been duped by a pretend individual who never existed. That’s pretty darn big new Jodee. Even atheist scholars and academics have researched the records and of Christ’s existence. If you now who made him up –
I’d call a press conference. I bet you’d get way more people in attendance that the lovely ones I met tonight honoring peace, tolerance, and bridge building.
Yes, that was sarcasm – and when I stupe to it, it’s a good sign that I am no longer being tolerant or helpful. A sure sign for me to…
what do I keep saying? Pop out.
And JQ, just start doin some squats. Leg presses. Soon that jiggly butt will be in tip top shape – ready to take on the woods (perhaps a short drive away? Buck nakid).
Life – live it.
It seems Jesus’ real life is the new topic (joke).Don’t know much about it, but would gladly take y’all on a tour to the sites (and good restaurants around them), if you came here. Now, Happy New Year everyone and Dr. Bacon (thanks for your INTERESTING blog, real pluralism of ideas and lively discussion). I’m off to make my assigned contribution — fruit salad (peach, almonds, apple, figs… left out anything? oh, yes , the orange juice). bye.
Christ was invented, huh?
This statement actually doesn’t surprise me, coming from someone who thinks Jesus should pay her parking tickets.
hello again…if Jodee really did read the Bible, she must have skipped the part where God gave humans authority on earth to make laws that should be reasonable to follow…like don’t park in handicapped spots, fire zones, etc.(I don’t know where she parked, that’s what the “etc.” is for)…these are modern day applications, of course…and also the part about give to God what is God’s and to govt. what is the govt’s(taxes and such)…I really hope that as smart as you appear to be, you didn’t lose your faith over a parking ticket…
Jodee,
I see you as being your own worst enemy.
Our backgrounds are nothing alike.
I grew up among people of very diverse faiths.
My parents introduced their children to Caholicism, and then let us make our own decisions as to whether we wanted to confirm it as our faith or to follow it – at a very young age. Independent thought in our household was always encouraged.
I have never felt the need to belong to a faith, nor to reject one.
However, your references regarding Jesus Christ being made-up do little to address anything I wrote. Truly, if you have the evidence to prove that the historical Jesus Christ (an individual) never existed – why not go out and get that big book contract with an international publisher and enlighten the world. (And make sure that contract is for a NON-FICTION book; not a fiction book.)
I’ve never been a person who spent decades of my life doing anything I’ve later completely rejected. Forty years of your life doing something you now deem as complete false-hood?
How did something like that happen?
(Geez, truthfully, that has had to have required quite a mental adjustment – as well as a thorough self assessment to understand why you did what you did to yourself for forty years?)
In terms of my writing being all over the place – yes, it often is in here. As I said from the beginning, I don’t even allow myself to check for typos – I skim read the posts, and then rush through my own. If I was ADHD, I’d state so. And I wasn’t offended over that – rather, I found it ???? when you wrote you’d hate to be my editor, “Yikes.” I mean, it was funny – but again, I don’t send editors rushed blog entries; I send them polished manuscripts. Also, when you mentioned yourself being a wordsmith (well, I won’t make any more comments on that).
If my writing is hard to follow at times – my apologies. You might want to make the effort however – because I think there’s some good stuff in it.
Now, come on Zero – I think your plan was a good one. For the people who want to stay reading this site – it would be a whole lot more interesting than this. YUCK.
As I said in a post waaaaayyyy up there – some people live in a mud puddle for years, when the whole wide world is right out the door. Too general of a statement for you Jodee? Think of it as a metaphor…
For me, if I keep regularly posting – that’s what I’ll be doing to myself. I need to open that door.
If I feel I have anything more – that is positive to add – I’ll pop back in.
If I do – I’ll only do so to relay a hopefully funny, interesting, and at least somewhat positive experience or thought.
Wish I lived near Hana, that salad sounded wonderful. Off to the beach for me……
And Jodee,
I didn’t fully read your last post – I was a little too eager to get out of here.
But your thoughts on children (I can’t confirm or deny anything you wrote about Dyer because I haven’t read it) were touching. I saw a lot of caring heart there.
Good, I have a nice last (rear-view?) 🙂 🙂 image of this whole thing.
Really, good luck to all of us on this journey.
And good luck to me – who keeps posting – cuz I’m the only one who can give myself permission to stop.
PERMISSION GRANTED.
I made a comment earlier to Jodee about her gender being irrelevant as far as the debate is concerned. After reviewing the recent posts, however, I think I have detected a difference between the males and the females after all…about 17 paragraphs.
🙂
I love you Joe G. 🙂 (AND your wife!!)
(Had always wondered about you both…)
And yes, no need to check back now for either of us. Your note was the cherry on top.
(THANK YOU)
Cheers to living our lives.
(Have beach bag, notebook, and puppy in tow…
now I really can go.)
This was like … MAGIC. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Gary – touche’ LOL
havAgr8Day – first of all, the ADHD question was serious. Your writing is all over the place and difficult to follow, so I was attempting to understand why. That’s not the same as “jumping to…conclusions.” You seem to be offended by the notion that you appeared that way. Do you have a problem with it? You worked with people like that, but god forbid you should be one? Hmmm. Where’s the love?
And there is little difference between a Catholic household and a Catholic church – only a matter of degrees. I should know as my background is very similar to yours.
And yes, Christ is an invention. By his original name, Chrestos, a Greek sun god deity. If by Christ, you mean Jesus, you still have a problem. If you investigate and attempt to find ANY historic extra-biblical evidence that Jesus ever existed, what you will find is NOTHING. Literally none of the contemporary historians of his supposed time even mention him. Two refer to “Christ”, but that is interchangeable with Chrestos. The Josephus reference has two problems. Number one, he’s not a contemporary and number two his relatively paltry entry has proven to be a later addition by someone else, (the Catholic Church, perhaps?) and therefore a forgery. The authorship of the New Testament Gospels is unsubstantiated, as no one really knows who Mark is and the other three are based on his first writing. (Mark and John are not even Hebrew names, so very doubtful these guys were Galilean as the writings seem to indicate. Also no letter J existed before the 15th Century, so no James, John or Jesus for that matter.)
Then there’s the ancient Egyptian Sun God, Horus, whose life is a near exact duplicate of that of Jesus, complete with immaculate conception, crucifixion, and miraculous raising from the dead after three days, although Christians, as I stated before, have a serious math problem here, since Friday evening to very early Sunday morning is not 3 days. Horus predated Jesus by thousands of years, so now you have another problem. There were “Followers of the Way”, later known as Christians, that predate Jesus by 150 years. So, there’s another problem. Which Christ were they following? I’ve listed only 3 Christs, (and there are many more,) all of whose followers’ party lines claim him to be the only Christ. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. THAT is the real world. I don’t need to call a press conference, the rest of the “real world” already knows this and has widely televised it, including a large number of Jews and most atheists. So to which atheists and scholars are you referring? I spent 6 months diligently searching and couldn’t find a one, so if you have information I was unable to unearth, I’d love to see it.
Actually, if an atheist would step forward and present the historic facts of the existence of a miracle-working god-man who died and rose again, THAT would be worthy of a news conference, as it would be a first. In fact, that would be worthy of Nobel Prize. A bona-fide challenge has gone out into the real world that pays real money to the first person who can prove the existence of the historic figure who is now known as Jesus. I don’t know what real world you operate in, but it’s sure not the one that most of the rest of us are living in.
What you don’t seem to understand is that the Roman Catholic Church has formed and/or influenced all western thought, starting at least with Constantine, who by definition is the first Pope. He claimed himself to be the intercessor between man and god, to have the authority to interpret god’s will, and accepted, even demanded worship as a son of god. (Kissing the Pope’s ring qualifies as a worshipful act, BTW.) The purpose of the Catholic Church and all it’s daughters is one: to contain and control the masses, mostly through fear. That is consistence throughout Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam.
You’re missing the point about quantifiability. I assume you don’t charge a fee for the love you extend to others. Dyer, on the other hand, makes claims, one of which is that he is a prophet, and charges a fee to hear or read his claims. Therefore, any savvy consumer has the right to question and challenge the validity of those claims before being parted from his/her hard-earned money. And the only way I know of to substantiate a bona-fide claim is to quantify it in some way, especially since he’s selling it as a commodity. When it’s just left up to individual interpretation, then there’s no foundational value. We can go to the Toa ourselves (probably check it out of a library for free) and get out of it what ever we want. We don’t need Dyer interpreting it for us if it’s all a matter of whatever you see in it, anyway.
Frankly, his recount of a couple of illustrative stories from his enlightened past I have serious problems with, as someone who has had vast experience with kids of all ages. He simply doesn’t understand how kids think. He recounts a story about his 3 year old daughter coming home from school, (and why in the world is a three year old in school, when she has such a “wise” father?!) with a star on her paper. He asks her what it’s for and she tells him it means she got all the answers right. (They were doing addition.) He then tells her that he’s not impressed with the star – it doesn’t matter to him and she doesn’t need it. He’s just glad she can do the work. So the next time she brings a paper home, it has the star peeled off. He asks her why and she tells him she gave it back to the teacher and told her she didn’t need it and to give it to some other kid who needs it. All this to illustrate his “My reputation defines me” point . This is a bunch of bull. If a vicious serial murderer gets the reputation for being an evil person, that’s because he’s earned it and it most certainly defines him. What Dyer doesn’t seem to know about a three year old, especially a girl, is that Daddy is God. He only succeeded in switching her need for approval from the teacher to himself. Her daddy said she didn’t need it and so that’s what she told her teacher. He defined her as someone who didn’t need the star, never considering the possibility that she might have liked it, or that he put her in an environment where fitting in is so important and then doesn’t want her to fit in. Talk about messing with a kid. It’s human nature to care what those we love think of us. Strangers, sure – you shouldn’t care about that to the point of wanting to please everyone to make yourself feel good. But, concern about your reputation is certainly valid in many applications in the real world. Dr. Dyer himself is a perfect illustration of that. He needs you to believe that he is the prophet he claims to be and I’ll wager derives a great deal of his self-esteem, not to mention profit, from that lofty position. He is what he does. oops! another no-no in his book.
His other story has to do with an occasion on which he was “watching” three kids for a friend of his (another woman) ages 4-7, near a swimming pool. He was working on his laptop while doing this, fully convinced that they were safe under his care, so right away I have a problem with this whole scenario. Children around a pool require your undivided attention, especially at those ages. The children begin “tattling” to him about various mistreatments at the hands of the other two and he simply tells them he’s not interested (again not interested) in their squabbles and they’ll just have to work it out. And surprise – they did. Again – bull! Kids want adults to interact with them and set limits. They feel insecure without them. This is why kids are supposed to have parents. The tattling kids were basically demanding his attention, interaction, and establishment of limits. But, instead of acknowledging this need, which he could have done without refereeing if he had any parental sense at all, he sent them off to figure it out on their own. No doubt, they simply resigned themselves to the fact that he wasn’t interested in them or what they were doing and they were on their own. This technique has some valid applications, but not at these ages and most certainly NOT next to a swimming pool. Has he never read Lord of the Flies? or heard of gangs? This is how kids “work it out on their own” when adults consistently aren’t involved in their lives.
What I see from these two stories is a man who is self-involved, with an over-inflated view of his own value as a contributing member of society, measured perhaps by his income. oops! another no-no from his book.
Good luck in that real world you live in.
I see the Christians are coming back to the discussion. Well, folks, trust me. I’m your worst nightmare: an ex-christian who actually knows her bible – spent over 40 year studying it and believing it and most of the history that goes with it.
You have all resorted to the typical Christian response over the hypothetical traffic ticket. So, what did Jesus (or whatever his name is supposed to be – no j’s before the 15th century, remember?) die for anyway? Oh yeah, I remember – so we don’t have to go to hell for our sins, like speeding. Would that be the same hell that was invented by Dante’? So, I’m supposed to believe in someone who didn’t exist to save me from a place that doesn’t exist. Well, I guess that makes sense……..not.
And, by the way… do you observe all the Levitical feasts? Oh yeah, probably not, since Jesus fulfilled all those laws, so we don’t have to keep them, thereby abolishing them. So, that’s why I still have to pay my traffic ticket! Jesus didn’t obey all of our millions of laws, so the ones He missed, I still have to pay for. But I thought He paid for ALL my sins.
Look, people, if I’m questioning the validity and authority of the Bible, which in case you missed it, I am, then don’t try to prove your point out of the very resource I question – the canon of which was dictated and manipulated by the Catholic Church, a purely political entity.
Once again, my point is made about esoteric writings – everyone feels free to make up their own interpretations and ignore what they don’t like. Frog, if you’re referring to the “whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained” reference, you’ve got a problem then with “judge not, that ye be not judged”, don’t you? Or are you referring to Romans 13, written by a Gnostic and then manipulated by the RC? Interestingly enough, a large number of clergy have been directly instructed by our government to preach this very chapter of submission to the government that “God has put over us.” Gee, that doesn’t sound like a contain and control tactic at all…..And why can the government tell churches what to preach? It’s call the 501.C.3. You Christians are yoked with mammon. But isn’t that an unequal yoke, since our government is largely pagan? Oh, but wait. Maybe not, since Christianity comes straight out of paganism, too. You people really need to do some brushing up on your church history.
Oh, and did Jesus abolish the 10 Commandments, too? He kept those perfectly.
Jodee, I never judged you…in fact, I made a reference to how smart you are…I don’t judge people as that’s not my job, but I think I am allowed to judge their statements objectively…because that’s not a personal issue…I think if you misunderstood a simple paragraph written by me, it is certainly possible that you may have misunderstood a good portion a thick book like the Bible…
To HavAgr8Day
Bravo! Good for you!
You’ll be glad you stepped away. It is time to get “out there” and return your focus back on living your truth and away from debating it!
I was curious about what was being posted here since I left and with very few exceptions (not worth coming back for except to encourage you) I am sure glad I stepped away too.
Everyone is equally entitled to their beliefs (even when they appear to be “wrong”) and the stronger we each feel about our “Truth”, the more evidence we each can come up with to back it up and you can see that many passionate writers on this site with lots of available time could carry this on for years and you will never change their minds. There is great freedom in being OK with that!
While some of the writings here may give you reason for concern, most people can see them for what they are and will go on believing what they rather believe anyway.
You can definetely feel the “energy” to use one of our favorite words on this site and it is no longer a positive one.
I can see there is no reason for me to check back in after posting this so I just wanted to wish you and everyone else a great life!
Good luck!
I stand corrected. Jesus Christ is a RE-invention, as he has several nearly duplicate predecessors. And you can’t prove a negative – that something doesn’t exist, so that request for proof is based on a false premise. The burden of proof falls to existence, not non-existence. As for spending over 40 years in something I then discover is mostly fabrication, that’s not hard to understand. Change is not the preference of the vast majority of people. And in my case, I was indoctrinated (apparently to a much greater extent than havAgr8Day) from my youth. People tend to stay within their comfort zone. They may stumble upon truth, but they usually pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and continue on their way. So, the real question is how could I leave it. But, that is a simple answer, too. Because as much as I appreciate comfort, I appreciate the truth more, and I detest being lied to.
I don’t need to write a book. Volumes on this subject have already been written; and very well documented, I might add. So, again, this is a frivolous comment which reflects what many people are content to be: and that is spoonfed. Do you really want to know? Then look it up for yourself. Why should I bend over backwards to hand you the benefit in detail ad infinitum ad nauseam, what has taken me years to learn and discover?
Some folks have a very small world and don’t want to venture out of it to discover what they don’t already know. Heaven forbid, they might find something that challenges their beliefs. That’s fine. I understand that. But, I’m not interested in fairy tale beliefs, I’m interested in truth. havAgr8Day didn’t provide the references I requested, namely the atheist or scholar who has documented proof of the historic Jesus. It would doubtless be a waste of time to try to find. I spent 6 mos. looking for it under every rock I could think of and still nothing. I’m still open, though. so if anybody out there knows of something I haven’t found yet, I’d certainly be willing to look at it.
Frog, you missed my point entirely. I wasn’t saying you were judging me, only pointing out one of many contradictions in the teachings of Christianity. My apologies if I come off as abrasive. I’m just sick to death of being lied to, especially when it’s intentional. In fact, one survey taken of clergymen revealed a very interesting, (and should be disturbing) truth. Most of them don’t believe what they preach, especially if they have an Ivy League educational background. They know the history; the history that they won’t talk about with their parishioners and that is easily hidden from them, since very few people ever bother to investigate it beyond the pathetic excuse for history that they got in high school. Many pastors freely admitted that they didn’t really have a good marketable skill, so clergyman seemed the most logical career choice. Prime example: my parents’ pastor claims to be an expert in ancient history and fluent in Sumerian, among other ancient languages. He has degrees and everything, but found himself working at Costco. Couldn’t make a living with his degrees, so off to seminary he went. But, despite his knowledge of history and fluidity in ancient languages, he has failed to mention the fact that the ancient Sumerian writings contain a good portion of what is commonly referred to as the 10 Commandments. Why would this info be so damning? Because it predates Moses (THE Law-Giver) by some 2500 years, that’s why. And if we question Moses, then the whole foundation starts to crumble, since he is the assumed author of the first five books of the Bible. And then there’s the code of Hammurabi – also a version of the 10 Commandments that predates Moses.
So, from where I sit, choosing to continue believing the lie after I’ve come face to face with the truth would then make me my own worst enemy, not the other way around.
And havAgr8Day, the next time you decide to pop in, take the time to show the rest of the group a little more courtesy. While your rambling creative process may work for you in the long run, it’s something of an insult to those of us who actually take the time to arrange our thoughts before we burden others with them. Our time is precious, too. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
ZerO, I’ve copied the sites you listed to a file I can look at later when I’m at my daughter’s house. The video downloads don’t work well out here in the sticks with dial-up, but she has satellite, so I’ll get to look then. I did get a quick look at Tom Bearden’s and will give it more time later. Looked really interesting. You might want to check out http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com. That one will blow your socks off.
It’s been real, but the weather won’t hold out much longer and it’s time I got back into my field. (Pun intended.) Take care of that little girl of yours…and for Pete’s sake, have more! 🙂 The adventure and balance it will bring to your life is awesome.
so, humans are wolves in sheeps clothing(something that God warned us about), and that makes God an invention…I don’t have a problem with “judge not, lest ye be judged.” prolly because I don’t judge people…I just listen to what they say, and make a judgement call on the info…that’s what I did with Dyer…
The Pope makes you kiss his ring…Ok, fine…but that’s not Jesus…Jesus would wash your feet instead showing that service to others is the highest calling…Jesus warned us about man-made dogma and taught us a golden rule and also forgiveness…people often confuse religion with God…televangelists are not God, and should not cause one to lose faith in God…just lose faith in the televangelists…if they don’t believe what they preach, then they are false, and I will move on…many people, I beleive, have altered the history books to make it appear as though Christ never happened…they tried to cover up His death and resurrection by saying the body was moved…they confiscated writings…anyone who claimed to be an eyewitness to miracles were locked up or put to death…so, for me, to site books that “prove” He never existed, or explained how things “really happened” doesn’t sway me as a Christian…I consider them all propaganda…
It really is a disadvantage that in the written word, you can’t hear my tone of voice, because I am not yelling or being sarcastic…just talking, and I respect your point of view…just don’t agree:)
so many people have written something only to come back and say, “I didn’t mean to be rude, etc.” It’s fine with me that in debates we are passionate to our point of view.
Anyway, although I don’t fully expect to turn non-beleivers into Christians with a post on a blog, I do want to make you reconsider your faith in God…and forget about all the phonies…
Peace
Jodee: I found your next-to-the-last long post (about J and Dyer’s child) absorbing.
But, my question: Why is J’s LITERAL , Concrete, physical life so crucial (of course it is, for emotional reasons, I understand that.) And I’m not underestimating your quest for truth. But, once and for all, can we accept that the notion of God (and all his sons, etc.) is ARCHETYPAL, meaning (grossly speaking) it has to do with a primordial, universal core of PSYCHICAL energy (…), ideational and emotional, without which we cannot live (be it a personal God, of this faith or that, followed or abused, etc.)
Back to Dyer: The fact that he’s not a perfect human being, nor exactly consistent (words and deeds), doesn’t mean he can’t be a teacher in some ways.
Did he really hint in any way that he was a “prophet”?
Dear HavA, go to the beach but don’t commit to leaving us, I enjoy your style a lot.
Alright, I’m leaving now. I am. Yep.
No really, I’m leaving.
This is it…I’m gone.
Okay, I warned you. I’m leaving now.
I’m outta here.
Goodbye.
Okay. I told you. I’m leaving.
Goodbye.
No really. Who needs this? I’m leaving.
I’m going now…don’t try to stop me.
Have a good life, all.
Honest! I’m not coming back. Okay.
I’m leaving now for real.
I’m going. Really!
This is it. I’m not kidding. Goodbye.
Okay, I’m leaving now.
Jodee, thanks for the link. This is the best gift I have had lately. Really thank you.
WOW
There is a tornado brewing in my mind. I can’t sit still. My hands are turning into fists.
Part 1
If people after watching this are still holding on to their religious beliefs they deserve the miserable life and world they have built for themselves.
Of course they could say that this video is the work of the devil and continue living the sweet lie.
Part 2. You remember what I wanted to do to the person that would hurt my daughter? Now multiply that by a billion. I wish I had special glasses so I could spot them. I would have a real “training operation” with them.
Part 3. I’m furious now. But I realize that anger should only be the fuel for action. I have a better sense of the enemy now. The herd is just an inconvenience, it’s the “shepherd” that is my target now.
We should use the same tactics that they use. Turn them against each other. How do we defeat them? I don’t know, YET.
Where are you Neo (the Matrix)?
Jodee, thanks again. This is great. Now I can just send people this link rather then trying to explain them everything. I’m not really good at talking and explaining. This is a fantastic tool.
Caveat Lector
As the summer draws to an end
And so, seemingly, our heartfelt intent,
A very long, colorful human trail
Commences to the Captain’s word “Sail!”
The Scientist Gran gives the tools for the job
Some sailors obey,
The soft, poetic ones sob.
The Dyer is busy colouring sails
But. alas, though he strives,
He can’t paint the skies.
On high, faintly heard, The Nazarene:
(while his friends keep debating the scene)
“Eli’ Eli, Lama Azavtani?”
And Wayne
Tries to comfort
In vain
(and aided by more than a wife):
“HE hasn’t, Son, say Aaahh, this is Life!”
On and on, almost six hundred waves,
But guys….please behave
While the Skiier observes, somewhat sad.
Now, the Child: “NO, please don’t cry, Dad”
Mothers, on each side, one Hip, other Strong
And the Child, pure, nor soft, neither snappy:
“Please Dave and Dad, please be happy”.
Happy Fall to you all.
This blog reminds me of the “bull” sessions we had in college in the early 70’s. No blogs back then. No computers even.
I am impressed with the knowledge and the intelligence so many of you demonstrate. I’m not intellectual, scientific or even well read. On my best days my intelligence is almost average and I am not just being humble. Keep reading and I’ll prove it to you. (I do know who Tesla was, I read “COMOS” by Carl Sagan.)
I am an good artist. I am a good observer.
I have seen Dr. Wayne Dyer many times on PBS telethons… I’m up late a lot. I tend to like the guy. I was initially surprised that he can generate such critical conversation. (I confess that in the 80’s I bought Tony Robbins “Personnel Power” tapes. What can I say, I was trying to improve myself.) I also must admit that Dr. Dyer and Mr. Robbins haven’t significantly changed my life as far as I can tell, but I’ll take most of the blame for that.
While I don’t read much I did enjoy “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell and the topics of this blog reminds me a lot of that series and book. Mr. Campbell talked a lot about religion and philosphy. He challenged the reader, “Are you going to live the life of safety and security, or are going to take the hero’s journey?”. I quit my blue collar job and my middle class but comfortable life and moved to Colorado.
JQP. Thanks for that story about the “mean boss”. It was powerful. Such a wonderful insight.
Jodee. I didn’t study as faithfully as you did but I did go to a Catholic grade school, taught by Fransican nuns, a Catholic high school taught by the School Sisters of Notre Dame, and even a Catholic college. My observations didn’t support what I was being taught.
I once worked with a guy who had a great need to have a theory or a belief about everything, even UFO’s. It finally occured to me that he was just not comfortable with the unknown. I, on the other hand, I seemed to be able to tolerate the unknown rather well. I was comfortable with the mysteries in the corners. I have learned to appreciate this ablitiy. I suspect many people, even Mother Teresa apparently, often have a crisis of faith but keep going to church anyway. I often question the existence of God, but when I do pray it is as Emily Dickenson prayed, ” as a congregation of one”. It doesn’t take much discussion with someone to realize that their religion is as individual and unique as they are. Everybody is a “congregation of one”. Whatever disagreements you may have with Dr. Wayne Dyer he does seem to advocate a more personal connection with the mystery of life that doesn’t require one faith, or one dogma. I am comfortable with that.
When the play had ended,
a wise and humble spectator
decided to speak,
and the quiet one – Hana
‘s poem made me weep.
Joe G was right about me needing to step away for real. But I think I will begin a blog over at Livejournal – which will be all about WONDER. And everyone here – who I’d otherwise miss in different ways – would be welcome to share.
The Blog (when I get a moment to begin it…) will be a post where all can share about what we don’t know, and all the joy that can be found there.
I’ll post a link in this journal once I begin it.
Hopefully by the Holidays.
Love, me
Wow! Crap! I looked at this http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com and I was blown away. Thank you, Jodee!!!
That’s what I like about Dr. Dyer and many like him. He doesn’t force his values on others. You can choose him or lose him. He won’t come knocking on your door to drag you to his church. He won’t beat his ideals or values down your throat. You can accept or not. I’m not sure I agree with everything but you still have the freedom of choice. Look at the middle east. If there not dying over land then it’s God. I never want to see that kind of fundamentalism in this country. Dr Dyer leaves the choice of God up to me. That’s the way it should be. If I want to believe in Zeus then I’ll believe in Zeus!
JQP, Jodee, are you still out there?
This blog is turning into a ghost town.
It has become apparent that if we take out the personal attack/counter attack followed by apology or “I didn’t say/mean that”, then there is nothing substantial to discuss. I was afraid of this.
My proposal is still the same. If anybody is interested in discussion then we should pick a subject and set a date for start of discussion.
A link to a video or a website that everyone could go to and research would work for starters. Then on a specified date everyone can share their views and opinions for or against the subject matter giving their reasons for their choices.
We could have several discussions active at a time.
If there is nothing to discuss then it’s time for me to move on.
I’m back, if ever so briefly. Lots to do and catch up on, but wondered what was happening in dabaconland. ZerO and elwizardo, glad you were able to see the video link. Thanks for taking a look at it. Pretty heavy stuff, there. More people need to wake up. Get the word out. If you have the capability of making a DVD off the site, do it and pass it along. There are no copyrights for that very reason. The producer wants people to know what’s on there. And BTW, Aaron Russo, who was key in producing this movie, died suddenly of a “massive heart attack” last month. (Hhhmmm. Really? One wonders.)
Frog, I understand that you just don’t get where I’m coming from or where I’ve gone. There’s one thing that pretty much universally causes one to loose faith in anything/anyone, and that is the realization that they have been deceived and betrayed. The false claims of authenticity that, as it turns out, were actually manufactured by the power-hungry “Holy Roman Empire” and it’s successor, the “Holy Roman Catholic Church”, which is no less power-hungry, are eye-opening to those who want to see, and non-existant for those who don’t. After all, you can always blame the devil. And BTW, “catholic” means universal, so that right there should give a clue to the scope of their vision for themselves. And “church” comes from the German word for circus. That pretty much sums it up: a universal circus – three ring, no less. The fact that one isn’t officially Catholic, doesn’t exempt one from that influence. ALL forms of Christianity sprang from one mother, the RC, and ALL of them have her DNA. So, you evangelicals out there – don’t be sitting there and thinking that this little dilemma is unique to me because I was raised in a psuedo-catholic denomination. You bear the marks of the beast, too.
hana, the reason historic evidence for the existence of the person “Jesus” is so important to me, is that all my life he was presented just that way – as an actual figure in history. If he didn’t really exist, then the tenets that revolve around him are NOT set in stone. In fact, they carry no more weight than the sayings of Confusious or any other sage, for that matter. That’s not to say that the Bible has nothing of value to offer or that none of what it contains is true. There is value and truth to many parts of it. However, it was taught in my church as the irrefutable word of God – the last word, the ONLY truth. And THAT is the lie. Jesus can’t be the ONLY way, truth, light, and life, if the same is claimed for Horus.
Frog might reply that Horus is the lie. Maybe, but that explanation has a two-fold problem. Horus came first, by centuries, so the likelihood that what came first is the lie, as opposed to what came last, is slim at best. The other problem is that the Bible repeatedly calls on believers to set themselves apart from all other gods and their various forms of worship. “Do not take the names of pagan gods on your lips.” “Do not do for Me what the pagans do for their gods.” “Do not learn the ways of the pagans.” etc. So, if Jesus is an exact copy of Horus, then we have a HUGE problem with all of those references, not to mention the observance of Christmas, Easter, and Sunday worship, all of which originated in paganism. (See: Christianity: Roots of a Pagan Religion, by Phillipe Walter – this is a very academic read, so it may require a dictionary and your full concentration to understand it. Plus, it’s translated from French. But, it is well worth the effort.)
Now, if you take Jesus as a concept, then fine, but that only proves my point that he is an invention; a conceptual icon for a set of ideologies. However, that hardly qualifies him as the son of god, if by god, one is referring to a higher intelligent being/creator.
I still believe in a Creator at this point. I can’t really go to atheism. It just doesn’t make sense to me. There is both external and internal evidence for a supremely intelligent being and I don’t think it’s necessarily folly to want to know who or what that is. It’s just that I’m no longer invested in any religion to explain to me whoever he is. I am willing to keep searching and discovering whatever I can discover – “prove” out whatever I can. I believe I explained all this in a much earlier post, so I won’t detail it all now.
And yes, Dyer has claimed prophethood. I heard it from his own lips on the latest PBS broadcast that I watched, (out of morbid curiosity.) And I quote: “I’m a prophet. I get paid by the thought.” This, a reply to his son who was expecting his help registering for college. Wayne had better things to do, namely get paid to think. You can make what you want out of that, but I saw yet another indication of a self-absorbed male who has grossly over-estimated his own worth to the world. Not that he should have held his 18 year old’s hand and taken him through the process. But there are much kinder more encouraging ways of accomplishing the goal of making your older kid more self-reliant.
While Dyer doesn’t come knocking on your door trying to get you to go to his “church”, he has much more seductive ways of drawing in the gullible. He is an excellent speaker. He has a charismatic, almost hypnotic way of communicating – to the point where if you aren’t listening with an objective detached mindset, it’s difficult to unravel the web of conundrum and contradiction that he weaves; to the point where it may be undetectable.
Funny that Tony Robbins has come up. My ex bought his tapes, too. Only listened to one of them, and of course they also made no difference in his life, either. In fact, I doubt that TR has really made much of difference in anyone’s life, if you look at the percentage of people who have funded his lavish lifestyle by attending his “workshops”, buying his books, tapes, magazine, etc. There’s another self-absorbed male looking for people to “worship” him. Don’t believe me? Look at his monthly publication. His face is literally on every page and both covers.
Well, it’s back to the fields for me. Glad to see some new participants. And ZerO, I’d still like to discuss home-schooling with you. Got any ideas other than this sight?
Correction on that book title- Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan Religion. (available from Amazon) Sorry about that. Got it mixed with another book title.
So I must ask, as we look into ourselves, can it be said that from all the truths man swears an oath to, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc., that the only absolute truth is that there is no “one God” and that throughout time the myths we have created to perpetrate a civilized and morale society have slowly eroded the very nature of our existence?
Is it fair to say that “God is murdered, and we are his murderers?”
NihilisX – I still tend to think that there is only one higer intelligence, mostly because of the continuity and consistancy I observe in the natural order of everything, and because historically, polytheism seems to have been developed AFTER monotheism. All myths start with a truth. You can’t have a lie without frist having a truth. A quote I keep in mind pretty much sums it up for me: I don’t know who god is, but I sure know who he isn’t.
If by his murderers, you mean that we have altered, destroyed, or otherwise obscurred his true nature or being, then yes, I would concur with your supposition.
Jodee, what is your definition of God? Is it “higher intelligence”?
In my opinion truth doesn’t come before a lie or the other way around. Both come into existence simultaneously. I have stated in my prior posts that as soon as you create anything you simultaneously create the opposite or the “absence” of whatever you just created. Truth-lie, good-bad, black-white, anything you can imagine.
I disagree with the quote: “I don’t know who god is, but I sure know who he isn’t”. To me that god is an incomplete god because it is a divided god. That god is a man made god. It does not encompass everything in the universe and therefore is not everywhere and in everything.
If I had to put a label of God I would say that the universe (known and unknown) is God. This God is everywhere simultaneously. It is pure potential and a source from which everything starts. It is both the good and the bad, the entropy and neg-entropy. All opposites are within it including nothingness and infinity. It just is. If you put anything after “is” than that thing is part of God and not God itself because it is a subset of the whole. God is the whole. If you say God is “this” and “that” then what you exclude must be beyond God where God does not exist. This God would be a finite and powerless God created by finite and powerless intellects.
The God (another label for universe) that I am talking about has already put infinite energy and freedom at our disposal. If we are clever enough to do something, then God will not promote OR interfere with it, will not reword OR punish for it, because God is all of those things simultaneously.
Worshiping such a good is meaningless because it has already given everything there is to give and there is nothing we can give it that it doesn’t already have.
Believing or not believing that this is so has no effect on the Universe.
There is only ONE pair of zero-infinity. This ONE contains nothing and everything simultaneously. All things known and unknown are a subset of this. This ONE is GOD, the whole UNIVERSE.
ZerO – I don’t have a well-defined “God”, as it were. First of all, I only use that term, so other people will have a point of reference. I actually have a problem with that term, as it does generally refer to the various humanly contrived images (and therefore, finite ideas,) of something or someone that is incomprehensible. So, when I quote, “I don’t know who God is, but I sure know who he isn’t”, what I mean is that, I don’t understand all the attributes, qualities, characteristics, etc. of that incomprehensible entity, but I know for sure he isn’t who religion says he is. (And I use the pronoun, “he”, in a generic sense, not a gender sense; like using “man” to mean all humankind.) In one of my first postings, I stated that I thought the Creator is an electrical being. And so, as such, I do agree with you in a sense, that he/it is everywhere and in everything. Or at least his nature is: that is, his electrical nature. I can’t think of “him” as the whole universe, because as big as it is, even that is finite.
I do think that truth came first – originally. And here’s why. Throughout human history, as far as we know, humans seem always to be searching and striving for something that is better – a perfection, if you will, that is incomprehensible (like the Creator,) and equally unattainable in our less that perfect state. And here’s where I think the Bible still reflects a shred of that truth. Why else would humans instinctively know that we/things could and should be better, no matter how prosperous, or how well a society is flourishing? We are never satisfied. I think that’s because in our wild memory, we know that we once were in a state of perfection and we instinctively long for it, strive for it, but never reach it. It’s as though, once the lie came, then that state of perfection was forever destroyed. So, I suppose that I could agree with you in that context – that truth and lie exist simultaneously now, after that fact.
We also naturally find death abhorrent, almost as though it is NOT a natural state. We, as a race, are constantly trying to find ways around it, to prevent it or at least delay it. The ancient Chinese believed that if they could just find the right combination of nutrients; just the right ways to nourish the body, they could live forever. They came darn close, but they still died. We even see this sense of death and loss demonstrated in animals of higher intelligence. Elephants go through a mourning and sometimes even a type of burial process. (Saw that on PBS years and years ago. It was amazing!) Mourning, sometimes for very long periods of time, has been observed in the large apes. I think this fear or abhorrence of death may actually be the primary motivating factor behind the formation of religions – as a way to deal with death. It’s almost as though people need some sort of artificial mindset in order to deal with this unnatural event. They need to know that they will continue to exist in some sense or at some future time. Even those who look at death as a completely natural thing, have “talked” themselves into that mindset through some sort of process, be it meditation, mysticism, or what have you.
So, if it is true, that everything originally was in a perfect state, then the Creator is also perfect, embodying both good and evil, male and female, etc., in complete harmony – something we humans seem to be incapable of emulating. If the Creator does not embody evil, but only good, then there has to be a co-creator who does embody evil. And there we have the birth of polytheism. I tend to reject the latter, but maybe that’s just the last bit of churchianity lingering. However, there has always been a sense of struggle between good and evil, in it’s most basic form, so, again, I tend to think that that is part of a wild memory.
The truth is, there IS punishment in the form of natural consequences, aside from those civil punishments which man institutes. For example: What is the natural punishment/consequence for eating pig, squirrel, shellfish, etc. (all the foods listed in the un-clean list in Leviticus.)? It is parasites that cause disease, and diseases that develop from the inability to digest those proteins. (See University of Hawaii study in the early to mid 80’s. Sorry I can’t be more specific. It’s been a really long time since I read it.) And what is the natural consequence of sexual relations with animals? Venereal diseases. If disease is a natural state, then why do we instinctively fight to overcome it? Why not just succumb to it and die? There are natural boundaries and natural consequences (punishments, if you will,) for violating them. A lot of people try to pay for their sins against nature with drugs and surgery – and boy, do they pay!
On a larger scale, I see cycles of cleansing, that I think might rightfully qualify as punishment – periods of geological cataclysmic events that have come in the wake of prevalent evil and in essence forced us to start all over. The December tsunami, and dare I say it, Katrina – is it a coincidence that these things hit a couple of the most perverse decadent areas/cities? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know. But, there is evidence of a world wide flood. There is evidence of the land masses splitting – once being joined together. We are now sitting right next to the super-volcano known as Yellowstone National Park. And as the majority of geologists will concur, there is no such thing as a “dead” volcano. Most aren’t saying ‘If”, they’re saying “When”. You don’t have to look very far to see evidences of unspeakable evil and evidence that it is definitely increasing. Then look at the timetables of history. Pompeii – very decadent and perverse society. And that’s just one example. I can’t think of any societies that were largely altruistic – that didn’t engage in sexual perversions, human sacrifices, and the like that were wiped out. Maybe I’ve missed something, though. So, feel free to upset this apple cart.
I think there is one thing – only one thing – that we can “give” to an infinite entity. That would be respect. There are obvious natural laws in place with obvious natural consequences. To me respect, (worship, if you will,) is acknowledging those laws and living within their bounds, and beyond that, living by our natural wild conscience. We know it’s wrong to murder. We know it’s wrong to usurp/confiscate that which belongs to someone else. We know it’s wrong to do harm to others. We have a sense of ownership and a built in sense of justice – that there should be some sort of justice. We don’t all agree on exactly what form that justice should take, but we do all know there should be some. Every society, no matter how “uncivilized”, has some codes of conduct that are common to every other society. To me, this speaks to a conscious thinking Creator of order. I just don’t see how it could be the product of some random evolutionary process.
I suppose, that now I’ve really stirred the pot. Oh, well. As I said, I’m an equal opportunity offender. Don’t take it personally. I’m not claiming to have it all figured out. I’m still in process – probably will be till I die. But, I’m not charging a fee or selling a book. So, feel free to do with it as you like. It’s just my opinion.
That’s the thing about black and white thinking.
If you look at a color wheel,
you will see all the shades of grey and off-white that connect them.
When you look at your friend,
do you see only their best qualities?
Only their worst?
People vary, but many often seem to see both – and often see how their strengths and weaknesses can be two sides of the same coin.
I’m guessing that if a person dwells in polarities, that that is how they will view the world.
If you’re more prone to trying to accept and unite the various parts of the whole –
you’ll be more prone to seeing the greys –
and actually, possibly? seeing how there is great truth also in grey. And maybe how it is all part of the same thing…
When people have been injured by a system – it would make sense to step back, and to put up very severe boundaries.
It might also make sense to have an “us” versus “them” mentality. At least initially.
But after a while, if one looks truthfully at individuals, it is probably not a very useful tool.
Some white people in the united states risked their lives to help black people a long the freedom trail to the north during the times of slavery.
Some white people exploited and abused black people as slaves during that same time.
And some white people – like the man who wrote Amazing Grace – changed and grew and profoundly transformed – from somebody who contributed to great brutality, to somebody who opened his eyes, and changed his life completely.
If somebody who was african american and living in the US tried to paint every white person living in this country with the same brush, it would be understandable.
But, it would be innaccurate.
And potentially a hindrance to him or her.
Whether people embrace the fact that everyone is on an independent journey in this life – or reject it – it does seem to be the truth.
In art history, the society/culture that produced the art if often taught as well.
Many art historians, who have spent time learning latin etc., – believe that the Catholic church changed different things at different times – literally altering timelines – so that those timelines would line up with pagan traditions; thus allowing people to feel more comfortable embracing different beliefs (no orgies or sacrifices – at least not technically).
During the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church commissioned paintings that art historians believed once again slightly altered, at least a couple of women figures, in the Bible. Many art historians believed that this was done to convey the message to individuals that “if you left the church, you can come back” as the point of the paintings was one of forgiveness and redemption.
The majority of people at that time did not read or write – let alone communicate on a dime with millions of people using the internet.
Thus, art was potentially a way of communicating to people who could not read, as well as to those who spoke other languages.
It seems very hard to try to assess all of these things with a one-size fits all answer.
Life seems to be easier when one assumes that one will always be it’s student. Not other people’s students necessarily, but life’s student.
Somehow, it seems to be easier as well once someone accepts that it may be impossible to tell what happened thousands of years ago.
Individuals can probably all benefit much from opening to it.
Maybe once you stop being harmed by a system, you can stand separately from it – knowing that all the others in it are just like you – and maybe that at some other point in their life – they will make different decisions.
Maybe once you stop being harmed by a system, you can stand separately from it – knowing that all the others in it are not like you – and some may be giving and receiving things at a much higher (or lower) level.
Maybe just say “AHHHHHHHH, this is life.” 😉
And consider opening windows in your own life – to let in some fresh air.
And consider being gentle with oneself.
Maybe after that it is easier to be gentle with others.
Questions.
To live with?
At least the people who come to this site seem to care. That seems like an awfully good starting point.
I was thinking about the truth/lie simultaneous idea over the weekend. (Yeah, I actually had time to think! 🙂 ) I’m not so sure that actually applies across the board, because it tends to be an exclusively black and white, either/or scenario, as though there are only 2 possibilities. A truth doesn’t necessarily have an opposite. So, I still think, for the most part, truth is the beginning and lies follow, mostly because where there is a truth, there can be many lies that follow, not all of them occurring simultaneously with the truth. Then there are are the half truths – the grey areas and the evolutions of those grey areas. If they stay gray, they’re more likely to attract an “audience”, as it were. Whereas if the lie is completely black (ie., completely false,) it is obvious and much less attractive. Truth can stand on it’s own without a lie or half-truth, but lies and half-truths can only exist where there is truth. And that’s where guys like Dyer get their audiences. He throws in just enough truth to make it seem plausible to the vastly non-thinking masses. That’s the thing about esoteric thinking – there are no opposites. It’s mostly grey and seldom all white.
Jodee, let’s first discuss the concept of truth.
As a concept it must be timeless. So right away there can not be a before and after (before and after are concepts also) because we eliminate the time element. As soon as you define what truth is, that which it is not is automatically and simultaneously defined. It is like action and reaction. If you define what half truth is, right away you have defined what half lies are. The closer you move to the center of the gray area you see that truth and lie blend into each other and you can’t make a distinction. This is the equilibrium of the universe where truth and lie are the same thing. If they are the same then they are tied to each other. They either don’t exist or they exist as a pair. So the “eye of the beholder” makes the distinction, makes the definition, and places the label. The universe does not provide labels. Man has the monopoly on that business.
It is like polarization. As soon as you create one of the poles (truth) the opposite pole (lie or not truth) is automatically created by the universe. As soon as you create a negative charged pole the universe will generate a positive charged space around that negative charge.
As another example imagine a flat rubber sheet (this is the universe at equilibrium). Looking at it from either side it is flat. If you push from one side you will create a curvature that will look convex from one side and concave from the other side. So the concepts of convex and concave come into being simultaneously as you push. You couldn’t push the rubber sheet in a way that produced a convex curvature on one side and still stayed flat on the other side. This is just a simple example but illustrates the point.
For the universe (or my definition of God) everything exists simultaneously. For the universe all the concepts that we come up with are meaningless. It is not conscious of itself or us because it is timeless. Consciousness is tied to the flow of time and to the existence of something other than the self. If you can not register a change in yourself from moment to moment (flow of time) and there is nothing else that you can use as a reference for comparison (something other than self) then there is no consciousness, no awareness, there is no experience, there is no life. Since there is only one universe or whole, there is nothing for comparison. Since there is no flow of time for the universe as a whole then it can not use itself as a reference for comparison. So as a whole it has no consciousness, no awareness of itself and especially of us.
Worshiping this God (universe) has no benefit to this God since it is not even aware of it. If there is any benefit it is for the worshiper, which makes this act a selfish act.
I think the best way to acknowledge God is to understand the universe and how it operates and use that knowledge for the benefit and well being of our local space-time (let’s say our planet for right now, maybe our solar system later on). The universe will take care of itself.
As far as Dyer, he is what he is. He is not responsible for his audience. Every person has to take responsibility for his/her life and choices. If someone does not want to take responsibility for their life and prefers to stay ignorant and makes choices that lead to unpleasant conclusions then it is no one’s fault but their’s. They deserve what they get.
What is the definition of ignorance? I would say that not understanding how the universe (God) works is ignorance. Going against the workings of the universe can hurt you. How does the universe operate? Well that’s what we are trying to figure out, together.
A question: how many people are truly (only) lazy and unthinking?
Can the appearance of laziness mask depression, fear, confusion, lack of informational resources, the desire not to hurt parents who sacrificed for them, or any number of other things?
If everyone has a brain, might it be possible that everyone uses it to the best that they know how – at that moment in time?
Is it possible that everybody is on some journey of growth?
If we feel pain, might not others as well?
And when we make mistakes (participating in anything we later view as mistaken) – might we accidentally be causing others the same grief that we feel that they cause us when we make mistakes?
Is is possible, perhaps not probable, (but possibly probable 🙂 ), that all humans are on a simlar path of learning – that requires mistakes as part of the learning curve?
Could one’s inner journey of growth – be compared to an ever expanding spiral? If the growth continues and fear doesn’t cause it to contract…
Just Questions 😉
Is it possible that if a person can see areas in their life where they made mistakes, that their consciousness was a little in the grey at that time?
Is it possible that if we want to continue growing, that we might want to embrace this as part of the growth process?
Is it possible that thousands of years ago – when communicating and travelling took years and sometimes decades, that parables/stories/myths and art were used to tell more concrete truths so that they would translate easier and be more meaningful?
Is it possible, even possibly probable, that in thousands of years, even with our technological gifts, that people (if people still exist as we know it on this planet) will wonder if Hitler were actually a real person, or a myth – representing evil?
Is is possible that a government would make it illegal to say that the Hollocaust never happened?
(YES, because at least one has.)
Is it possible that a government would outlaw that because of a concern over preserving the truth for posterity’s sake.
Is it possible that some would argue that infringes upon free speech?
Is it possible to relate to truth (whether one decides to define it, or finds it, as myth, cultural parable, spiritual teachings, etc.) in the here and now based upon our own inner experiences?
Is love perhaps the one truest, brightest, whitest truth?
Were there perhaps far too many questions in this last post?
? 🙂
Okay, Zer0. I get your context. Mine was really a context of time, not timelessness, since I’m basically dealing with events/doctrines in an historical setting. As you said, the universe will take care of itself, so since I am confined to operating within the bounds of time, aspects of timelessness are mostly irrelevant to me, at least on a day to day basis. A lot of things are concrete rock-solid true and some just aren’t. They’re either theory or musings or some other kind of dogma. So, what I’m saying is that as a race/specie with an apparent beginning within time, truth was all we had in that beginning. Things were what they were. It is after that beginning of time/existance that the human race changes what is into perceptions of what is. Thus, the movement in thought from white (truth) to ever increasingly darker shades of grey.
For instance, geneticists have discovered that all human DNA originated from the same two parents. Hmmm. Sounds like Adam and Eve. Well, is that the real account or a mythical story based on the existing truth? I tend to believe the latter, but the myth still has an element of truth. That’s what I’m talking about when I say that lies/deceptions/half-truths start with truth. Truth could have stood on its own, but the confluent myth cannot because the truth is the point of reference for the myth.
I have a bit of trouble viewing the universe as synonymous with god. There are events that have happened in my life that I can’t explain outside of the interaction of some kind of higher being or consciousness and the universe just seems too vague to me. I look back at the path of my life and think, “Holy crap! How the heck did I manage to get here?” or “Wow. That decision should have resulted in disaster, but it turned out for the the best.” I’m talking about things/events/effects that were outside my control, and some that happened despite my every effort to control them to the contrary. Some would say coincidence, but all those things fit together too well for me to buy into that notion. How did I get to this point in my life despite my ineptitude?! I’m living the life I always dreamed of, finally married to my soul mate and the love of my life, (we finally found each other less than 18 mos. ago.) It’s almost like no matter how I screwed things up; no matter how many unwise and just plain bad choices I made, I got here anyway with very little conscious effort. Opportunities fell into my lap and I guess the most I can say is that I was smart enough to recognize them and take advantage of them, although, had they come at different times in my life, I either wouldn’t have been able to act on them, or they would have been wrong at that time. Why did they come at just the right time and not the wrong time? So, even that has an element outside my control or consciousness. Of course, none of this is the least bit scientific and it’s completely unprovable. It’s just my own internal evidence that I have interpreted as someone somewhere having had a personal involvement with me at various times. And that’s because I just can’t seem to come up with a better explanation.
I absolutely agree that Dyer’s audiences are responsible for themselves: to think or not to think, to evaluate or not, to discern or not. Self-responsibility is the basis for that free market I was referring to way back on an earlier post. Individuals bear the responsibility for their own ignorance and/or dishonesty, and any decisions they make, as well as the resulting consequences. The minute regulation is introduced, it removes a degree of responsibility and becomes a manipulated market to whatever degree regulation is introduced. I don’t know that human beings as a whole are even capable of handling that kind of responsibility. They seem to tend toward that old Adamic quality of passing the buck. It certainly seems obvious that as a whole, they don’t want to. That’s what enables the few and elite to rule the masses. The masses are generally lazy when it comes to taking responsibility for themselves. Within those masses are a few independent thinkers who weren’t born into the elitist class and who, in any event, have no desire to rule, but wish only to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. (And so long as “as they see fit” is not harmful to anyone else, they should be free to do just that.) Unfortunately, they tend to suffer the injustices due to the lazy right along side them. In a sense, those who would gladly take responsibility for themselves are inhibited from doing so by those who don’t want to.
So, while a few of us are out here are trying to figure out how the universe works, those who know history and understand economics are busy trying to keep us enslaved and distracted with their crap. That seems to be how this little part of the universe works.
Shhhhh…
I think it is not that people are lazy and all the other things that you mentioned. Everyone has a mental capacity and uses it as best as they can since we are not given an instructional manual when we are born that specifies exactly how to operate for optimum performance. We are given freedom to operate in a free mode. This freedom places the responsibility for ourselves in our hands. If we choose to live by following the instructional manual of the society or the church or anyone else then it is our choice and we have to live with the consequences of that choice.
If we compile our own manual based on our experiences, the experiences of others, while keeping an open and free mind then we would be more independent and free. This will have it’s own consequences whether good or bad. So here is another choice that needs to be made.
In the time domain of the universe everything is about choices, changes, action/reaction, transformation, entropy/neg-entropy, etc…
Every choice me make (action) has a consequence (reaction) whether it happens right away or ofter a long time. If we collectively make a choice then we also collectively pay the consequences of that choice.
What I think gets people into trouble are assumptions. Assumptions have their place but if you start forgetting that assumptions are based on incomplete and maybe erroneous information and start believing that your assumptions are anything more than an imagined version of a real event, then you are distorting your minds vision. The reality that you build in your mind is now different than the reality of the universe. Assumptions about the past are especially vulnerable to distortion. Assumptions about god will make your mind a fertile ground for the “devil” 🙂 .
Once assumptions become rigid and turn into beliefs then you don’t see the reality but rather synthesize your own reality based on universes reality. You “drift” away from the universe and from God (based on my definition of god). You are no longer free. You are your mind’s prisoner because you no longer can experience the universe without the filters that you have created.
I got to get back to work, I’ll try to continue later if I can.
Really enjoyed the last posts…
More questions 🙂
Doesn’t the west coast of the US have one of the highest rates of illegal immigration? Humans who have risked their lives to live a different kind of life? To have the freedom to pursue freedom?
To have the freedom to secure some forms of physical security (however illusory that concept is or isn’t) for themselves and their families?
Wasn’t West LA one of the first areas in the US to vote in a known mayor who was homosexual?
On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, isn’t survival the first need that he felt individuals needed to be met, before others could move up the rung to things like power and love and finally self-actualization (something that requires a high degree of individualization)?
Is blame ever more productively helpful than simply knowing the facts, understanding, and holding individuals accountable for their actions?
If cruelty exists, can it ever be stopped in the past? (Well, until we know how to time travel that is? 🙂 )
Is NOW the only time that we can act (one at a time) in a way that stops the cruelty that is happening right now?
Can we as individuals use our pain and knowledge regarding what happened during the holocaust to help prevent the genocides that are happening all over the world now?
In some ways, in terms of our ability to communicate, know information, and even see images of it – is what’s happening right now to many individuals around the world very much “right in our own back yards”?
Can we not see what is happening, hear what is happening?
Did Dyer himself not only bring an example of a woman who survived a terrible genocide, but also went on to live a full life in the present (while graciously educating others regarding what is and was going on) with forgiveness in her heart – to the awareness of anyone interested via public television?
Does anyone reading this post – not only others who are posting, but anyone – want to be part of what creates greater peace around the globe at this time?
In what ways can one do that? Here? Now?
Whether one focuses upon the spiritual teachings of Budha or Christ, or Zorasther, or Baha ullah (please forgive spelling) will one be less or more likely to contribute to the cruelty? (If one focuses upon the teachings, not the dogma and humans around them?)
Can one use one’s own ability to think independently as a tool to assist others in their growth toward that end as well?
Is that ability a gift in a way that could be shared – with tolerance and patience?
Peace right now to you…
For Jodee, based upon your post several up:
Is it POSSIBLE that we indeed do have some sort of destiny?
For Zero,
Is it POSSIBLE that we do indeed NOT?
Is it possible to open our minds to both options?
I don’t know what neck of the woods you guys live in, but the vast majority of the people (and there have been MANY) on the west coast USA are not the least bit interested in truth or freedom or independence. A lot of them think they are, but what they really want is to be comfortably taken care of by the government nannies and reassured and spoonfed by the high priests of politics, pseudo-science, and religion. (Ooops! guess that was redundant. They’re all pretty much the same thing.) In essence, they’d rather be lied to. A plausible lie designed to lull and subjugate is more than welcome in their minds. Thinking for yourself and educating yourself is often hard work and most of the people I’ve been in contact with aren’t interested in hard work, especially if that would result in a dynamic paradigm shift, and especially if they’ve already reached a place they feel is comfortable. (Nevermind that that comfort they love so much can, and probably will be ripped out from under them at any time and leave them dangling, confused, and with no resources they’re aware of – no alternative tools in their toolbox of life.)
The overall attitude I get from people is: “Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.” And THAT is what I call lazy thinking. The mind that becomes contented with perceptions that, if they would just open their eyes and see, stand in the face of facts.
The holocaust was brought up, so there’s a prime example. Were all German people Nazis? Of course not. Did they all, or did even the majority, agree with Hitler’s agenda? I don’t think we can say that either. We could ask though, “How could this be going on in your own back yard and you did/said nothing? knew nothing? Didn’t the train loads of crying and screaming people going by your churches on Sunday mornings make you at least wonder? or did you just sing louder to drown it out.” “It’s too aweful to think about or consider. Nobody could be that cruel. There must be another explanation, although I’m not going to bother to find out what it is.” And there you have it. (BTW, my ancestral lineage is German. As a teenager, I still had relatives that were alive and had lived in Germany during that time, so the questions/answers I pose are not something I plucked out of thin air.) In that instance we can probably even add cowardice to the laziness.
It doesn’t matter how well documented the evidence is, the vast majority of people, in my experience, simply do not want to leave the cozy nest they have manufactured for themselves, even if it means freedom and health. And so the old adage: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Shhhhh…
In my opinion you can have A destiny (a fixed outcome in the future) if you don’t have freedom. If you are truly free then you don’t have A destiny because you continually change the future. Well I guess in this case your destiny was to be free of a destiny 🙂
In my mind both concepts exist simultaneously. I see the coexistence of opposite concepts (at least I try very hard) all around me all the time. It’s just a matter of re-training our minds. We are trained from the day we are born to have a stereo “vision” (stereotypical mind), to have an Either/Or mentality. It takes willingness and conscious effort to see beyond the stereotypes. I don’t view the events that happen to me or around me as good or bad. To me they are just that, events. They are reactions of past actions. If everyone took action against the first genocide of the 20th century, were 1.5 million Armenians (mostly women, children, and elderly) were massacred or driven to the desert to die, then the holocaust and genocides that followed would have been prevented (a reaction of an action). Hitler himself has stated “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” (direct quote). To this day Turkey is denying their genocide of the Armenians. At least Germans were humane enough to recognize their wrongdoing. Turks have not evolved enough to be considered humane.
So reactions occur due to actions and lack of reactions that counter the action. So those that do not react to counter an action contribute to and taste the fruit of the reaction to the action. We are all guilty in this respect and should see our responsibility in all undesirable reactions (events) around us.
Got to go.
Jodee and Shhhhh…
You both make some real good points.
I think we should change Shhhhh… to S?????… 🙂 Just kidding
About Mexican illegal immigrants – was I perhaps getting too far afield there?
(Actually, my limited experience has been with the very impoverished immigrants, who come from Mexico as well as THROUGH Mexico from other countries – and are willing to take just about any job to have a shot at living a free, and not as corrupt, life. My experience a long the West Coast has been that a lot of people arrive here and stay here based upon their ability to think independently – but that may just be what I see because of where I’m looking…)
MOST IMPORTANT TO ME: I personally loved what you wrote about destiny Jodee (Zero, I thought your points were good and funny – especially based upon the more concrete definition of destiny/predestiny) – and found it to be highly interesting.
I too have shared many experiences that I’ve interpreted similarly to the way in which you described some of your life experiences Jodee.
It’s almost as if life, or some sort of higher intelligence (G-d?) keeps nudging my life in a certain direction… A direction even better than one I could have come up with on my own.
And it usually seems that the more I pay attention, and follow these nudges, however they come, the faster and clearer destiny or… a calling perhaps? seems to (trying to avoid using the word manifest here…) come into being…
and continues to evolve.
Well, I would be abandoning my pattern of posting without using at least one question…
What does this all mean? (Not sure…)
What could it mean?
Can we know?
Can we listen and have it help us anyway?
s????????? 🙂
More general questions to anyone reading these posts:
Regarding the genocides in our own backyard…
What are our options in helping these situations?
Is being conscious, and acknowledging the situation verbally/publically doing anything to help it?
Is it selfish to focus upon one’s own life, and to ignore these genocides that we can see and hear (and which, for multiple reasons, may be very DIFFICULT for any one of us to do individually do anything concretely, physically to stop them…)
Does learning more about thinking independently help to stem the tide – perhaps in the future?
Does living a happy, fulfilled life yourself, actually assist in any way – as selfish as that initially sounds? Does it perhaps model (teaching in a way that not much else often can?)
a different goal that isn’t based upon power over others?
If Dr. Bacon had originally understood Dr. Wayne Dyer as having said “Spiritual energy is the energy of abundance,” as opposed to “Spirititual energy is the energy of abundance – what does that even mean?” would any of us have anything to post about now?
Shhhhhhhh…. Dr. Bacon 😉
S???????
PS the key words in the last sentence of above post being:
“spiritual” versus…
“spirititual”
from somebody who occasionally needs some spell-checking help 😉
Yep. The holocausts are right in our own back yards for sure, yet they continue. Why? Because most people choose to believe the almighty government press when it tells us that killing an innocent is a choice and a right; that we need to use their tissues for “curing” diseases that have been created by a chemically altered and poisoned food supply, which the same propoganda machine tells us is good for us and has no bearing on our degenerative diseases. It’s always easier to look the other way – that is until they come for you; until they decide that you’re too old or too sick to justify the expense of keeping you alive. (Had an elderly friend who was, I believe, intentionally overdosed on morphene, but much to the surprise and seeming dismay of the nurses, it didn’t kill her.) You’ve just made my point about selective eye-sight and willing ignorance. It’s easier and safer to do nothing, especially when you see what happens to the few who actually do take a stand.
However, if events are neither good or bad, just events, then we needn’t concern ourselves with holocausts of any kind. They are what they are. But, I can’t really go there. It eventually flies in the face of order and decency, concepts that we humans, as a race seem to be born with, for the most part.
The fact that an undesirable event can still have a good eventual outcome only attests to the coexistance of both good and bad and the impurity of each.
Destiny is a mysterious thing. There are signs of it, but then there are also indications of will. It’s as though we’re all children heading in a certain direction. We get distracted or injured in some way, yet there is a “parent” to redirect, heal, or encourage/pull us back. It just seems that some people (children) don’t have a very good parent, or maybe they just refuse to “listen”. Perhaps it is in the combination of these aspects that destiny and will co-exist.
I’m not sure what the point was about the heavy illegal immigrant population of the West Coast. Where I live, this population has been responsible for a dramatic increase in sexual assaults, weapon, drug and vehicular crimes like hit and run. The press plays it down, but the police know it’s true. That would tend to lead one to think that the motivations of those crossing the border illegally are not at altruistic as the media propogandists would have us believe. Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in this hemisphere. It only stands to reason that a significant portion of those coming from such a place would be at least influenced in their way of thinking and in their values by the society from which they’re coming. Many of them feel that this part of the world should belong to them anyway, because it was originally theirs. So, they come here with an indignant sense of entitlement. They clearly do not understand or respect the aspects of war and conquering. If you lose a war, you don’t get to keep your land. That’s just how the game is played. And look at what they’ve done in the land they did get to keep. Geez. They have oil resources, as well as other natural resources and yet remain one of the poorest countries on this side of the world. Why? Because they’re just a peso away from total anarchy. A system where you have to buy “justice” at every turn, where you have to assume that every official can be bought for a price, is a system that is just a nudge away from total lawlessness.
Holocausts and large scale injustices will continue as long as the masses allow an elite few to control their lives through their own greed and laziness. The more you want from government, the more enslaved you will be, because they will be happy to give it to you – for a price, and that price is your liberty.
You’re an idiot.
You’re all idiots, or why would you be on here in the first place? Go get a freakin’ life!!!
D.B., I’m just liking you more and more 😉 (No wonder you snagged yourself such a lovely bride!)
My initial reaction when I read above posts was: ‘Well, some spiritual qualities – such as compassion, forgiveness etc., have come fairly easily to me – but man have I blown it in the area of detachment lately.’ (Embarrassingly, regretfully so). Thus I thought, ‘perhaps life is just tossing me a nice opportunity to strengthen a pretty weak detachment muscle.’
Anyway, playful humor is always great though (fun, and probably a sign of detachment too?)
Something I’d like to share with everyone. I think it might be important.
May need to wait, (well, one never knows when the time will present itself), a bit? until I can post it – because I’ll want to spend more than five or ten minutes on this one. Like I said, think it’s important.
Until then (however soon the chance arrises…)
🙂
No, you’re an idiot! No you are! No you! You! [DB Blugs his ears and closes his eyes and tries really hard not to touch or taste anything.]
Good Grief! Jenine Wilcox, you seem to be having some difficulty with the philosophical and intellectual content of some of the postings on this blog. (BTW, how much time did you spend reading them, “get a life”?) However, I may be able to help with that. I returned last night from my grandson’s 5th birthday party and still have the “temporary” pirate stuck to the middle of my forehead which refuses to wash off, so perhaps I can be of some help in communicating on a level you can comprehend.
“Oh, Yeah? Well, you play baseball like a girl!”
Shhhhh… how’s that for a little detached humor? 😉
Shh…Hope you have recovered. What can be said about #596 that isn’t obvious. But of course I would have had a similar reaction in your place. Jodee…terrific 600th comment.
P.S. I know it’s a serious, intellectual blog. But I miss JQP, Zero, Frog, … and (of course) HavAgr8Day. And the others.
Kate,
I do – but of course, I’m the pie-eyed optimist who has the “the universe is friendly” view of the world.
I haven’t heard Wayne Dyer speak of the tribe mentality, but I believe I understand the concept.
I truly believe that the more one builds bridges of communication, and friendship – with others from other cultures, that the individual’s “tribe” begins to expand. For me, we really are all fish in one pond; one tribe (until we find life on other planets, and then perhaps become one universe; one tribe 😉 ).
I had the great fortune of growing up in a very diverse, but very safe, neighborhood. Many of my friend’s families spoke different languages at home. At that time – in elementary school, the tribes were more: parents and (oh no, un-uh, we do not want to go to bed!) kids.
I grew up – from elementary through high school, maintaining almost a dozen friendships (four which are still going strong decades later). Each of us in the kid tribe were all initiated into some sort of religious education (even when the parent tribe’s motivation seemed to be more that they were supposed to do this as good parents – as opposed to that they themselves were very religious). So whether one of us was off to the Mosk, or to Temple, or to Church – we experienced it as all the same.
And our values of how to be a good friend; not talking behind each other’s back, being there when another was down – the basic golden rule – were there too.
When one experiences their initial tribe as being whatever kids they resonate with – and those kids range the gamut of ethnicity/culture etc. – it’s pretty impossible to unwind the tape and all of a sudden look at those individuals as strangers or enemies.
And so – I was lucky in that from the day that I began speaking and crawling and walking – my tribe was pretty inclusive – and the human experiences we shared all so very similar. Same hat; different color sometimes.
In addition, many of the people I knew in elementary school began travelling far and wide once they began their professional careers, etc.
One travels frequently to the middle east (and will do a fulbright scholarship there next year).
Another travels frequently to south america and works on the behalf of immigrant farm-worker healthcare here in the United States.
ETC. 🙂
This is meant to be a fairly quick post because of today’s commitments – but the question deserves so much more.
But there are a few things that come to mind:
communication almost always turns the boogie man into a neighbor. (Did anyone watch Home Alone – the original? 😉 😉 You know – all that fear that was generated over a nice elderly gentleman -and none of it true…)
Oh no……
I had like six more paragraphs on the above post.
Too long to re-type right now.
But they were by far the BEST ones!
Would like to add more later…
Would love to read more from others on the subject.
And Jodee, super cute pirate image and post 🙂
And Hana… 😉
Kate,
thanks for posing that question.
I think there’s lots we all can do – on a thought/spiritual level, bridge-building level, and in even more concrete ways.
Have a lovely Tuesday everyone!
I think Zero posted at the same time I did 🙂 – thus our paragraphs merged, and some of mine fluttered away…
Good to see you Zero!
(Maybe Quantum Pontiff’s are merely mortal too?)
Happy tuesday…
Hello Shhhhh,
do you see any viable options for ending conflicts around the world?
I do agree with Wayne Dyer when he talks about ‘tribe’ mentality and how difficult it can be to be free of family and social constraints. Getting away from one’s own government is virutally impossible (it is easier to leave family than Big Brother Govt).
I believe there is a way to live in this world, with the happiness and joy you mention as contributing to a good and fulfilling life.
If you can do this, it really is wonderful.
love,
~ Kate
“You’re all idiots, or why would you be on here in the first place? Go get a freakin’ life!!!”
I started a response to the above but realized that any response is a waste of time and effort. It doesn’t deserve a response. It was designed to shift our attention from serious discussion and it succeeded.
If you notice some people chose to respond to the above prank post more readily than to the discussion that was going on prior.
Dave Bacon: How come in most of your replies you choose to show a childish attitude? I think I know why but would like to hear your reasons. You never participate in the discussions or reveal your thoughts. I would be interested in hearing what a quantum pontiff of your caliber thinks about the issues us mortals are bouncing around.
Kate (et al)
I think that having one human tribe doesn’t mean that we have to dismiss/forget the rich culture/heritage and traditions of our individual ancestors. Yet, does individual heritage have to define one’s tribe? Can we keep specific traditions/culture while embracing the greater family of humanity as a whole as our tribe? In my experience, the answer is yes.
I love travelling – it expands me like nothing else. I love learning (hands in up to my elbows) about other cultures, etc. Yet, I don’t think differences in culture define/or mean that anybody is from another tribe…
I often see other aspects of myself (sometimes previously unknown) in the eyes of somebody from a distinctly different land and culture.
Maybe because many of my youngest experiences involved a wide variety of travel – I sort of scooped up all the different, smiling faces – and accents – as being part of my one big multi-faceted tribe.
🙂 Also, again, probably due to my life experience – my tribe also includes animals, plants, planets and all of those things that can’t be described with words – but ARE nonetheless.
Regarding the animal note: At the age of ten, I used to love counting up all of the domestic animal friends that shared our household (we were always saving, befriending, and assisting some wild ones as well). Funny thing is: although the one Australian shepherd we shared our home with did occasionally try to herd a human or rabbit or bird, everyone really did get a long quite well. (Including the parrots, red-belly newts, dogs, cats, rabbits, etc.) And the red-belly newt never felt it had to grow feathers. Well, if it did, it never told me about it 😉
Anyway, is it possible to celebrate cultural differences, while also celebrating the greater human similarities?
It has always seemed to me, that deep down, it is almost always people’s fear/insecurities/pain etc. that cause division. Perhaps that is where some of the greatest benefits of Dyer’s teachings can be found. (Although I am quite limited in my knowledge of them.)
Fear almost always seems to cause projection. If someone is afraid of something strange/unknown – it is easy to ascribe and project all of the negative/disowned parts of oneself/one’s culture, etc. Seems like history is ripe in scapegoating. But what does that ever get us, besides more of the same?
Different thoughts, different energy = the potential for different outcomes.
In terms of what you said Kate about living a fulfilling, joyful life – I believe that there is not much else one can offer that can come close to that in value in terms of teaching. Modeling can be the best teacher of all.
Anyway, I do think, in addition, that when one has the finances, connections, media opportunities, etc. to help victims of any specific genocide – that one’s life will only benefit from utilizing those as well to provide concrete assistance. Brutality doesn’t seem to do well with exposure and truth. And when one person, one child… is helped, who knows what sort of ripples that can create… (And the value of two souls themselves is more than enough I think.)
A last thought: while I do often think that “big” government has much to do with the violence that plagues much of earth – I also see the truth that wars, genocides, slavery – goes back to the beginning of what we can trace as human history.
Should we give up on it then?
Well, I of course don’t think so.
The more we understand the power (and powerful energy) of love, thought, forgiveness, (and – swallowing hard 😉 detachment – the more we can
hopefully approach things in a different way perhaps.
I once worked with an abandoned, impoverished minority child – who a facility had nicknamed “killer” due to his non-stop kicking and biting toward those who tried to get near him.
The first thing I did was to ask him to give him a different name – one that he would be proud to live up to… The second, was to see him as the frightened (of course), vulnerable child he was – and to create as much of a secure, responsive environment as possible for him. He sure didn’t seem like a killer by the end of the time that I spend in the facility (and I’m NOT taking the credit for that – so many good people). It’s just, sometimes – what goes in, comes out. And perhaps that’s also where Dyer’s teachers can also be helpful. When what has gone in is enough to cause despair, Dyer comes a long to remind of that we are not the name/identity/projection that anyone else has placed on us. That we are love ;), and the whole beautiful world can be our oyster…
Lastly – to Zero, I’m a very visual person – and I loved your example of a metal sheet bringing convex and concave qualities into being at the same time. Really struck with me. Energetically though, sort of fun to play with. On an interpersonal level – sometimes it seems so often that when one person yells “you’re a … big, ummm, snot ball!” that that can start a response cycle that almost never ends. In the above example, it almost seemed like – the metal sheet was flat, someone lobbed an insult (concave) – and the whole thing returned to a flat sheet by
– turning the other cheek?
-humor?
-detachment?
Probably lots of other ways to think of it. But very glad that we’re using some of this blog to discuss the many hurting, suffering individuals around the world right now… at this moment.
A wish for a safe, belly-fed, good-night’s sleep to you all…
Dave Bacon: How come in most of your replies you choose to show a childish attitude? I think I know why but would like to hear your reasons
Because I’m actually a ten year old kid and this whole website is a spoof! 🙂
More seriously, JohnQPublic came pretty close to nailing what I would have said most of the time. And I enjoy listening to your discussion more than I would enjoy jumping in and trying to force my opinion down other throats. Generally I respond to comments that are seriously silly (like calling someone an idiot) or come from a very narrow point of view.
Even more seriously, I’ve been very grumpy this summer 🙂
DB- Hmmm. Sounds like a bowel problem. Maybe you need a cleanse. 😉
Dave – I think this audience wouldn’t take offense even if you did try to force your opinions. So feel free to participate. The more controversial the opinions, the more interesting the discussion.
You never know, it may help your bowel problem 🙂 (broken telephone)
At last the subject of tribes is finally up here. I was wondering if we’d get around to that. It seems to me that Dyer blurs the line between true tribalism and herd mentality. I think there is a fine, but distinct difference between the two. Tribalism can turn into herd mentality, among other things, but it needn’t always be the case.
Tribal traits are more than just physical/physiological. There are personality tendencies that run with a particular line of DNA. We see this in animals all the time, particularly in dog breeding. A breeder will breed for not only physical appearance, but temperament.
My best friend has Celtic ancestry and I have some of that with German mixed in. (Oi!) She has an uncanny way of instantly learning how to deal with and communicate with people just by knowing their tribal background, usually by their last name if they’re male or maiden name if female. It has seldom failed her. When approaching a new neighbor (male), with whom there was a conflict brewing, whose last name was Campbell, she knew right away she’d have to “kick his ass” (verbally) before he kicked hers, ie., she’d have to fight to earn his respect if she was going to get anywhere with him. She was right on and when she told him how she knew how to deal with him, he laughed and had to admit she had hit the nail on the head. His wife really howled. They are now the best of neighbors. They understand each other and give each other their due.
She also has close neighborly relationships with her African-American and Hispanic neighbors – understanding their ancestral tribal attitudes and giving them their due. I realize this sounds like stereotyping, but stereotypes didn’t just materialize out of thin air. They came from truth. The harm comes when distortion combines with disrespect. Then -poof- you have racism. (See? the truth comes first, then the lie.)
Differences should be noted and respected. I see that as the opposite of racism. It’s ridiculous to pretend they don’t exist. It isn’t necessary to become one big homogenous race or village or to be “color blind”. It’s only necessary to respect the differences in tribes and personal boundaries. You don’t have to “escape” from your tribe. In fact, I think it’s healthy and beneficial to embrace the inherent qualities of your tribe. Complimenting each others strengths and weaknesses seems a much better approach than trying to work toward a homogenized sameness.
Escaping from the government is an entirely different matter, especially since they own you by virtue of the registered births and numbers they convinced your parents and grandparents were necessary. Think I’m crazy? Then ask yourself why military casualty and mortality is referred to as “collateral damage.” Collateral is something you put up as security against debt. Figure it out. There are bigger forces at work here than most people realize or are willing to admit. Just wait till they try to microchip everyone from birth and tell you it’s for your own safety/good. Sure, no more faces on milk cartons, but also no more freedom to move about. As long as people continue to expect government to take care of them and provide for them, crap like that has a real chance of happening, and the slavery will only get worse, regardless of which tribe you’re come from.
But, you gotta’ keep your sense of humor…Zer0. I love your willingness to be open to new ideas and thoughts and to rearrange your perseptions, but you really have to lighten up sometimes. Maybe try putting a temporary tattoo in the middle of your forehead and then go about your day as if nothing is amiss. Works wonders. 🙂
Conflicts are a very profitable business for some.
If it wasn’t for the politicians, governments, and other power entities that create and use conflicts for their agendas, most people would have found a peaceful co-existence a long time ago.
We need to change those who are behind the curtain, those who are in control of governments and societies.
We need to open the minds of the people to realize that conflicts are artificial in nature and they have a hidden agenda pursued by some entity.
What conflict can I have with someone half way around the world who has the same human feelings and the same everyday problems no matter what name they give to the entity of their worship.
There is no profit in peace for the greedy few.
Jodee, thanks for the constructive criticism, I’ll keep that in mind 🙂
Shhhhh,
I did see Home Alone – it was quite funny!
I think what you express about diversity is the
‘secret’ to this amazing life in the universe. Without it, there would be no richness or context to relate to in meaningful ways.
Yours was a wonderful upbringing. Would that we all from a young age have had apppreciation of diversity nurtured in us – by family and society.
It has been a process for me, a peeling of layers to find that my joy arises in newness, springing forth from a foundation I am thankful for, but the webs of entanglement had to loosen, and in some places cut.
If I have anything of value to offer this world, it is this – a clear mind, uncluttered, and open to learning and sharing – and a strong sense of self, not dictated by passing emotions and changing thoughts. Qualities that I cultivate which I offer back to each one reading here – acceptance, enthusiasm, and honest sharing of my own perspective with full allowance for different points of view and opinions.
It is nice to be here!
Shhhhh…, I’m glad that the example was helpful. The principle works universally (just my opinion) but sometimes it’s hard to see or recognize. It’s the way the universe (the whole universe not just the “visible” one) operates. No action can go without a reaction. No concave without a convex. If we don’t see or comprehend it doesn’t mean that there was no reaction. The accountants of the universe will make sure that the books balance at the end of the day. All dept will be payed back one way or the other. But the good thing is that the universe does not charge interest, because it is not in it for profit. You can not add to the universe or take away from the universe. You can borrow, use, then return. Now imagine a society that operated the way the universe operates. You get what you give, no more no less. Those who give the most would receive the most and vise versa. There will not be any banks or a way to store anything. What ever you want whenever you want is available for borrowing, using, then returning. The worth of anyone is based on their contribution. It does not matter what they contribute. Any deed that benefits the whole is counted as a positive contribution. So you contribute at whatever you are good at.
Since there is no means of taking something and keeping it, then there is no fear of losing it. No reason to steal something if you can access it whenever you want. What are the implications?
Sorry to wonder off. I just feel that we should understand and learn from the universe and model our society to operate and function like the universe.
Regarding irrelevant comments: I try, but I am not sure what the current, common theme is. JQP and HavAgr8day dissappeared into the void of the Quantum Soup (though not in the same soup I guess). Jodee and Zero disagree about God. Shhhhh and Kate are discussing Je ne sais quoui. So unless Dr. D. comes in to teach us something online about applied quantum theory (I mean it seriously), I may even write another poem .
Kate, well phrased last paragraph. I agree.
Dr. D. save us, before hana writes another poem 🙂
Just kidding hana 🙂
I’m eager to learn about the latest in applied quantum theory also as it relates to my view of the universe.
Come on Dave, the audience is waiting.
Tom Bearden is one of the best known crackpots in the field of “free energy”, the modern incarnation of the age-old futile quest for perpetual motion. Bearden has published an amazing amount of utter nonsense.
He is surrounded by a loyal band of cheering sycophants who go out of their way to threaten and silence their critics. This is rather ironic given their constant complaints that a vast conspiracy has successfully suppressed (and continues to suppress) all information about “free energy” because what it would do to established energy interests.
Bearden’s so-called “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator” is nothing more than a transformer with a permanent magnet that was claimed to “draw free energy from the vacuum”, i.e, to produce more power at the secondary than is fed to its primary. The only problem, of course, is that it doesn’t work — despite the claims of a few of Bearden’s followers who don’t know how to use their lab instruments.
Some warning signs of crackpot or fraudulent inventions
1. Extreme obsession with secrecy
* fear of getting “ripped off”
* refuses or delays patent application (“won’t protect me”)
* refuses independent testing even with black-box protocols
* some sincerely self-deluded inventors are exception
2. Works alone, refuses technical help
* sometimes, like-minded crackpots do join forces
3. Seeks publicity through mass media
* avoids peer-reviewed journals, professional conferences
4. Invokes vast conspiracies to explain lack of progress
* Oil companies, utilities, Arabs desperately want to kill my free energy machine
5. The claimed invention implies violations of firmly established mathematical or physical laws
* the inventor may or may not directly admit this, or even understand that he’s implying it
* the inventor may claim that existing laws are correct but widely “misunderstood”; naturally, only he understands them correctly
6. Claims discovery of new physical theories, or comprehensive “theories of everything”
* or asserts existing, accepted theories are “wrong”
* all without proof
7. An unusually long gestation period without commercialization
* frequently promises working device “in a few months”
* deadlines always missed
8. Lack of formal education in relevant field
* especially when combined with frequent potshots at the “establishment”
* but sometimes outsiders do make significant contributions
9. Pursuit of funding from unconventional sources
* individuals, especially the elderly with large life savings
* church groups, especially fundamentalist
* wealthy people lacking education in subject field
* funding sources with in-house expertise are carefully avoided (e.g. large technology corporations and hi-tech VCs)
10. Repeated pattern of touting one design and then abandoning it in favor of a new one when critics show it cannot work (“bait and switch”)
11. Appeals to religion or “higher power”
* especially when seeking funding from religious people or groups
* God thinks we humans “deserve” this invention, etc.
12. Heavy marketing emphasis on wonderful applications of device, carefully avoiding question of whether the device actually works
* Free energy source would eliminate global warming, pollution, end oil wars
I hope no one actually falls for that as..ole.
Hana,
just wanted to make sure that you knew:
I thought your poem was EXQUISITE.
More always welcome…
🙂
Oh…
and I think the topic of tribes that Kate and I were tappin’ about was one that fits in with some of Dyer’s thoughts… ?
Not sure if I personally can go anywhere with the concepts of energy, attraction, manifestation, etc. AT THIS MOMENT – without losing my occasionally tenuous grasp on detachment ;).
Something none of us here like/would like to see happen…
hugs.
I’m quite a bit like HavAgr8Day – part of me is here, while another part of me (the more essential me) is off developing my detachment and time management skills ;).
And doin’ some other FUN creative stuff…
oh no, one more.
Kate, I thought what you wrote was clear and beautiful. 🙂
Apropos notions, like Manifestation (remember Wayne Dyer?), Energy, “Energy” and, maybe, even Quantum Mechanics, you may want to have some (weekend) fun reading Deepak Chopra`s invitation to one of his (blog-) opponents, to meet in NY and witness spoon-bending , live. And the rest of the comments that follow:
http://www.intentblog.com/
oct.4
correction re the above link:
Oct.3.
and the title (approx.): “My last comment to Skeptisch”.
Sorry, I didn’t realize what this site was about. I came across the Bearden video link here through a search and I didn’t really read the posts. But I see now it’s not about him. My mistake.
For Hana:
Oh what a tangled web we weave…
I thought there’d be a natural transition for this – way later (when maybe the other journal blog mentioned was ready to roll?)
However, due to Hana’s comments, felt like I needed to post this now…
During the time I stopped posting as HavAgr8Day – and started posting as Shhhhh…
I had a few realizations:
1. I hadn’t initially meant to find DB’s blog, and when I stumbled upon it – I just reacted as my natural self (which is usually playing happily in the right hemisphere of my brain 🙂 and posted as HavAgr8Day…
2. After posting, I was very interested – and, without any thought to the big (time-oriented) picture, posted a bit more (especially after having Wayne Dyer’s book grab me (metaphorically speaking) at Barnes and Noble and sort of energetically force me to write a couple of posts about it… 😉 )
3. Anyway, I completely lost my composure TWICE (lack of detachment, anyone??) – and truthfully, really didn’t think I had anything more to say about my personal experiences in terms of that I not only believe in attraction/synchronicity – but I simply experience on a daily basis.
4. I did need a break.
5. I wasn’t up to any more of what Joe G. described as the negative energy in the room (my own included, I really wasn’t staying detached enough to stay engaged at a decent level)
6. And I did want to get back to, as Joe G. said, “living my truth”.
7. And so, I did :).
8. But I kept thinking, you know, the things I get to experience in my own life are really wonderful. Helpful.
Extraordinary in ways. And then I’d think – wouldn’t it be nice to offer it to others (or at least reinforce the concept) if I could do it without a. taking more than a few minutes out of my day at the most and b. not having any blowback caused by my own lack of detachment? (Sort of a tall order for me, as I’m pretty attached to the things that bring me joy 🙂 – in an open-handed sort of way. But like a Mama Lion protective of them).
9. And so, I thought… what if I just practiced a bit, seeing if I could post quickly, in a detached sort of way…
10. For my own sense of integrity, I always thought I’d connect the dots for everyone/anyone who cared…
but maybe after I had some better skill (at having enough time management to live my truth, and still post occasionally)
11. My TWO greatest sadnesses about it: I hated letting Joe G. down – after he came and rescued me from my own self (entanglement). And so – if Joe G. ever comes back – not to worry. The decision to post is a conscious one.
12. I. really. didn’t. think. I. could. ever. handle. reading. Gary. writing. five. or. six. posts. about. me. saying. good-bye. EVER. AGAIN. 🙂 (Wondering, I know a lot of people who don’t speak about the Tao, so perhaps I know a lot of Taoists…? Wonder if the Tao teaches those sort of posts? He really was only reflecting back a bit of reality…) STILL.
13. And so…
14. Shhhhh is actually me, HavAgr8Day – but mostly, Shhhh is the left hemisphere of HavAgr8Day’s brain –
wearing a detachment jacket. 🙂
15. Anyway, I write this for Hana’s sake.
16. I sort of thought that most of the regulars on the site would be connected to Dave B. somehow – and (not that he has the time to care) but – usually on blogs, even when somebody posts under a different name – it still comes up as the same computer. Thus, I sort of thought that most of the regulars might know this was me – trying to be a more sedate me – so as to communicate things a bit better. (Anyway, that was sort of where my name initially came from – shhhh, don’t tell until I get the hang of this and can handle things better.)
17. Feels sort of icky writing this.
18. However, the desire was to try to continue something positive – in a TIME MANAGED way (too hard when I was doing it spontaneously and reacting to everything/anything.
19. Anyway, 🙂 here I am. It’s ME, HavAgr8Day, Shhhh…… 🙂 🙂 🙂
20. Now, the only way I’ll ever be able to continue posting though, is if I can do so in a detached way – and in a way that is helpful to the information I’d like to share.
21. I hope Joe G. doesn’t feel disappointed in me :).
22. I hope Jodee won’t ask me if I’m ADHD again – seeing that I can write slightly more co-herently (although dully 😉 when employing much more of my brain’s left hemisphere. 🙂
23. Love to you all.
24. Synchronicities – still happening – EVERYDAY. Shiny with wonder. Can’t explain it. It just is.
Although my posts to JQP about running nakid through the woods seemed a bit – shocking (even to me) –
I think running/swimming, jumping on a trampoline – anything that gets you out of your head (and into your SELF) really does help to align you with all that is around you. Unlocks you from the prison cell of your head in a way. And doing any of the above NAKID (not naked, that sounds more adultish, yes?) WOULD probably help. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Hope some of you will understand. Hope Joe G. will never feel disappointed. 🙂 Hope Gary will “Shhhh…”
Happy October Hana (!) 🙂
xox, me 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂
See, all the smileys?
(And I hope Kate – who seems to just shine with integrity, doesn’t feel saddened by the latest info either.)
As if anyone really cares this much about an anonymous poster!!
xox
Brad, I posted the link that you referred to.
Since you are judging Bearden, which one of the 12 points are you accusing him on? I couldn’t see any of them stick.
I have read many of his works and know some of his credentials. What are your credentials that give you the authority or the qualification to make the judgment that you make?
Did you build a machine and test it with negative results or you are just repeating what others are saying?
Since you know about Bearden you probably also know about John Bedini and his work. Are you claiming that he also doesn’t know how to use his lab instruments? You should go and look up his credentials before you make any claims.
I would not call myself their follower but I wouldn’t discredit them either unless I had solid evidence to support it.
If you have anything concrete I would like to read it.
Hi|Shhhhh…(and everybody).Don’t know about the tribal idea, but… Detachment…yes, right, of course. Tomorrow, tomorrow I`ll practice that.
And yes, you do remind me of HavAgr8Day (she does use more of those little golden smileys. Wish I had them in my software.)
When you come to the “Middle East” – let us know.
And thanks.
Happy October to all.
Hi ZerO,
this caught my eye – from your comment on Oct. 3
“You can not add to the universe or take away from the universe. You can borrow, use, then return.”
Whatever is molded into substance – from the building blocks found on earth – will indeed change form and dissolve over time, including our physical bodies (oh, but not today!)
The issue of ‘consciousness’ which Wayne Dyer does write about (as does Deepak Chopra) – is a source of great debate – as to whether ‘it’ (consciousness) survives the death of forms.
And if indeed consciousness (which some call God) creates tangible forms from (seeming) nothingness, and lives on after the created forms have dissolved.
HavAgr8Day…Shhhhh,
I am so glad you have returned here! I was hoping you would.
It has been a calypso evening for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl7aM3nCqC0
enjoy!
love from
~ Kate
Dear HavAshOday. Doesn’t it feel nice to be back to your old self again. Wasn’t that sretching the definition of Detachment a bit. Isn`t that real competition for Deepak et al at IB.(I’m getting into the SHH mode of asking questions). Isn’t that a great idea for your new blog (suspense story).
Now, if that doesnt bring Jodee back from the fields, and ZerO from that guy who invented only God knows what; and DB from Japan, or from his back yard fixing some mysterious quantum device –then I don’t know what will.
Well, I returned to a lot of lovely, welcoming folk! Yay! 🙂
I was bracing myself for several posts from Gary stating “No, I’m HAVAGR8DAY,” no “It’s Me that’s having a great day!” “No, I’m SHHHHHH!”
Anyway, Jodee, I did enjoy learning how writing from the left hemi helped you to follow my posts better. I think we may have bonded a bit during my little “Shhhhh” siesta.
And, although there are so many good things to respond to, I promised myself that by OUTING myself, I’d still do my best to practice time management. And so, I can’t touch upon so many points that I’d love to – at this moment.
However, I will say one thing (that was sort of killing me over the week-end when I couldn’t write it):
For those who followed any of my posts about
me purchasing Dyer’s INSPIRATION book:
-initially getting Dyers’s Inspiration book from B&N and posting about some of the info in it
-later writing a post clarifying that I hadn’t actually gone to B&N to get Dyer’s book – rather, I had gone there to get a friend’s book – and Dyer’s INSPIRATION book just happened to be staring at me from the shelf right above it (I also noted notice if there were any of his other books on that shelf…)
-WELL, the MOST RECENT 🙂 thing that just happened was: was back at that same B&N, and while there, checked again to see how many copies of my friend’s book were stocked (4) 🙂
AND looked just above to see if any of Dyer’s books were where the INSPIRATION book had been.
NOPE. Looked at the author’s last names…
Dyer’s books weren’t even on the same wall !
Found them a couple of minutes later, on a wall that was perpendicular to the wall my friend’s books were on. Not only were there a bunch Dyer’s books in this other spot, but one of his books (I believe the newest one) had it’s cover facing out.
HMMMMM…….
Hmmmm????
🙂
Funny how the one book that I had been interested in (the INSPRIRATION one – because that was the PB special of his that I had seen and loved) was the one book that had wandered it’s way over to tuck itself in right next to my friend’s book – somewhere around the time I went to look for it (and had just stumbled my way upon this site).
Okay.
Think my internal alarm bell just went off.
But it’s good to be back. And forth. (Lil play on words there :). Perhaps I’ll try posting as a blended form of me. It won’t be nearly as dull as SOME of SHHHH’s posts were, but perhaps not as playful as some of HavAGr8Day’s were.
PS. Loved the way Hana combined the two names:
HavAshoDay. 🙂 🙂 🙂
xox (And I will be checking out Kate’s link sometime soon)
+ one more o
PS Jodee, your daughter does sound delightful (!) 🙂
Geez! I miss three days and now I can hardly keep up. A couple things did catch my eye, though. Sorry, I don’t have time to look back and see who submitted them. I cut and pasted as I read.
“And when one person, one child… is helped, who knows what sort of ripples that can create… (And the value of two souls themselves is more than enough I think.)” My first inner response to that was, “Why aim so low?” When I worked in the public school system, I would occasionally hear from a few self-dellusioned teachers that if they could just reach ONE child it would all be worth it. And I would always think, “OMG!If I spent an entire career teaching and only reached one child, I would consider myself a failure!” That’s not to take away from the value of the one child, only that there are so many needy, that if my best effort only reached one, I must have missed my calling. The law of averages is the only thing that produced such limited success, because after so much time and effort, nobody could utterly fail. (Throw enough mud on the wall, some of it is bound to stick.)
The second thing that caught my eye was, “When what has gone in is enough to cause despair, Dyer comes a long to remind of that we are not the name/identity/projection that anyone else has placed on us.” This is absolutely NOT true. In fact, the example sited after this statement proved it is not true. When a positive, life-affirming attitude/name was projected on the the same “killer” child, he transformed and conformed to that new projection. And the same is true of Dyer’s own example. He disproved his own point. He simple shifted his daughter’s need for approval and identity from her teacher to himself. So, let’s consider another possibility here. We all embody all aspects of the Creator, whoever that is, both good and bad, altruistic and selfish, etc. In picture terms, we embody two dogs: a good dog and a bad dog. Which ever one gets fed, or fed the most/best, is the one that prevails at any given time. Some days, the bad dog prevails and some days the good dog prevails. Maybe those days are even years, but the principle is the same. I think everyone is capable of killing given the “right” input/set of circumstances that bring out that capability. ZerO more or less demonstrated this in a much earlier post in relation to his little girl. Fortunately, though, most people’s trigger points seem to be tightly confined and generally speaking, don’t get triggered.
Children are simply less inhibited about what we all do and need. We all define ourselves through the eyes of others and we all need acceptance to live happy lives. The trick is finding the best people through whom to find our identity. Who feeds your good dog the best? I see this as one of the most integral parts of human connectedness. Nobody is an island, as the old quote goes.
Also, I’m sure how you all are defining “tribe”. I tend to have a very narrow definition in comparison. It has to do with DNA. I think the “tribe” that most of you are talking about, I would really refer to as my universe. It is much more inclusive. But let’s face it, even though I have a dog in my universe, I will never go out in my field, lift my leg, and pee on a bush. That’s never going to be part of my “culture.”
ZerO, I appreciate your dealing with Brad. That guy was really starting to tick me off. He comes across as a very tightly wound academic snob whose creative bone has been pretty much hacked off. And BTW, the reason most inventors and visionaries won’t patent their stuff is because once you do, it becomes public info and with only minor alterations, it can be more or less “stolen”. Sometimes this works as a benefit in that improvements are made, which can benefit a free market, but still, the inventor has the right to his invention, so I don’t begrudge him his due. (The lengthy court battle between Polaroid and Kodak over instant camera technology would be a prime example of all those points.) I wonder- would Brad criticize Einstein for his lack of “formal education”? The same formal education that places it’s graduates squarely in a particular box of thought, largely financed by “men behind the curtain”?
HavAgr8Day…Shhhh, you sound very guilt-ridden over your deception. I do appreciate your taking the time, however, to write a bit more coherently. It is the thoughtful courteous thing to do. I think I like the left half of your brain better than the right, probably because it’s easier for me to understand. And don’t be so touchy about the ADHD thing. My original question was only an attempt to try to understand why I couldn’t follow most of what you were writing. My daughter is ADHD/ADD and she is one of the most delightful creative people I know. She is certainly a constant source of entertainment – in a good way. She has developed a healthy ability to laugh at herself, because frankly, she’s just funny. She’s pregnant now and gets nauseous very easily even well into term. (We’ve figured out it’s motion-sickness. She’s never liked roller coasters, so now it all makes sense.) Anyway, she and her husband drove down to meet me at a midway point en route to So. Calif. She, of course got car sick and had to throw up. As she pulls her head out of the plastic bag, she notices the new shopping center sign along the highway and without missing a beat, says, “Oooo! Is that new Target?” Laughing, her husband replies, “You have thrown up way too many times!”
So, if you will permit me one more suggestion: detached humor is more or less an out-of-body experience. You mentally stand back and watch/listen to yourself and to those with whom you come in contact. It’s much easier then to see the humor in almost everything and most everyone, because it’s not personal anymore. I tend to look at my life at any given moment as a scene in a movie, and most of the time, it’s hysterical, because it’s naturally funny. (As opposed to being contrived funny.) Give it a shot. Maybe it will work for you.
Hi Jodee,
It’s true what you say about laughter and having a sense of playfulness about life’s experiences.
(congrats to you – on the soon birth of a grandchild!)
Have you listened to any of WD live lectures? He does have a great sense of humor and fun at poking at himself.
Leaving the tribe – is not necessarily a physical event (though it could be).
We are all a part of community in some form.
If I could mandate this moment – an end to conflict around the world, many communities/governments (imo) would no longer be a source of conflict and pain.
But …
would that end the inner struggles and suffering we humans seem engaged in
thanks to a mind that can’t be tamed
without effort!
love,
~ Kate
and I agree with your observation about good & bad.
The world of duality offers up
everything under the sun.
Jodee, I don’t think that this guy is even academic. This is one of those so called skeptics that go around and badmouth things that they don’t have the capacity to comprehend. The “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator†that he referred to is patented and disclosed. But to understand how it works you have to unlearn the electronics that they taught you in school and learn this new way of looking at electricity and magnetism. Only then it will make sense because there are other forms of “energy” that come into play. It’s like going to an electrician and asking him to design a hydraulic system. He will design something but it will not function the way a system designed by a hydraulics specialist would. To design a proper system the electrician has to learn about fluids and fluid flow. If he can’t or doesn’t want to, he will go around and badmouth the hydraulics specialist and his circuit because he can’t achieve the same results with his deficient circuit.
I keep an open mind regarding over unity COP (Coefficient Of Performance) machines. Theoretically I have been convinced that it is possible. Any heat pump is already an over unity machine. It provides more heat energy than the operator pays for to run the machine. So the energy above what he pays for is “free energy” supplied by the environment around the machine. What Bearden, Bedini, and others have come up with are similar to heat pumps. They capture and convert another form of “electrical” energy with their circuits that is all around us.
“Free Energy” and “Perpetual Motion” are very misused terms these days. They are mainly used to discredit or make fun of someone who proposes a novel way of capturing energy that the universe gives freely if you know how to take it.
I’ve seen what I think is the latest of Dyer’s “live” broadcasts. And while it’s true that he does employ humor, I don’t feel as free to laugh as much as I might otherwise, because I believe he uses it as a convenient ploy to keep the audience off track – to distract from his disjointed and nonsensical dogma. I was much too attentive to the actual content of his “sermon” to allow my mind to rest and accept he said. I had read some of his book before I watched and since I’m very visual, seeing his words in black and white, it was much easier for me to see the whole picture and bottom line it. I simply didn’t like what I saw at the bottom line. Not that he doesn’t have any of the truth or say things that are at least anecdotally true, but none of it is really original with him. It’s age old wisdom that he’s used as seasoning for his pretzel logic profit producing crusade. So, I was jaded before I watched the PBS broadcast. Bottom line, I find his humor, (while it would be funny if it were just related over cocktails or something,) to be manipulative, disingenuous, and self-serving. That kind of spoils the fun for me when I perceive that he only uses it as a “sales” tool.
And thanks, ShavAgr8Day. I find my daughter rather delightful, too.
Gr OlO its Sunday –Reads as “Growl it’s Sunday tomorrow”, back to work, end of 10-day holiday. Can’t find any humor there (would you?).
Cheers to your posts, Exits and Entries (sp?), Personas and Persons, Right and Left.
Oh God, if I only had a little yellow smiley.
Hana, I have a favorite slogan for situations like yours. It’s more like resigned humor, but here goes:
“No time off goes unpunished.”
Spoken like a true type A. 🙂
P.S. I don’t have the smiley face either, but when I type a colon, hyphen, and right parenthisis without spaces, it gets converted to a smiley face when the post comes up. Maybe that will work for you.
Right. Thanks Jodee. 🙂
I followed the instructions and , sinchronistically or not, the computer IGNORED it! I`ll try again in a minute, but I guess it wouldn’t do it to a type A. Here goes: 🙂
Oh well. Goes well with getting bitten by ferocious ants (migrated here lately from South America via travellers), and seeing a PORCUPINE (!!!) while walking my dog — not in some remote desert area, but right between the site of the government offices, the museum of science, and the university. Couldn`t believe my eyes.
And work wasn`t great either. I think I’ll go to bed.
Hey Girlie Girl Hana :),
maybe your computer couldn’t see the smiley faces that appeared in your posts?
They’re there… golden and shiny 🙂
Okay,
was a few miles from home, thinking about what I wanted to post – and for some reason, all of these examples with ANIMALS came up:
– one involving mice in the Carribean
– one involving something so beautiful and extraordinary (post to follow)
– and one involving a huge Buck that careened across a mountain road and ALMOST merged with me and my car…
Anyway, I kept thinking about the Buck example – because it poked more fun at myself and the subject (while still being a potential example of synchronicity)…
Then I came home and saw Hana’s post :).
Okay – about that Buck…
One night, as I was driving a long a mountain road, (a road I’ve driven realistically thousands of times without ever even SEEING an antlered buck)- I was thinking about a friend – and worrying about him.
I was deeply concerned that the thing he’d just done – a MAJOR decision/act in his life – was reckless and perhaps done out of some sort of reactive pain… and I was specifically thinking ‘I hope with all my heart that this act wasn’t as rash as it seems – because if it was, what panic might he be feeling right now…’
And just as I was thinking that – this huge antlered Buck bolted out of the dark brush and across the road, with a look of such blind terror on his face – as if he were running from something (and not even seeming to see me or my car)…
I was at once so stunned, AND so relieved, (that he and I had both survived – I had heard something – his hooves? knock against the car as he passed) – that I had to do what I always have to do in those sort of surreal situations (Check if in fact I was awake: Are you dreaming? No. This is lucid? Yes. Awake? Yep. Okay then, keep driving… carefully…)
And then, when my heart stopped beating so fast, I thought: ‘What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? I hope that isn’t how my friend is feeling right now… It’s too painful to even imagine that…’
And then I told myself DON’T THINK ABOUT IT.
Actually, I told myself, DON’T THINK. 🙂
And then I told myself ‘this is a BIG SIGN that you are supposed to go home, get into comfy pjs, and then go straight to bed and watch some really bad television’. (Something I’d normally protect myself from :).
Anyway, I did exactly that.
And everything felt all better.
(Until I recently learned that my friend may have been feeling exactly the way that I feared – at exactly that time.)
Next post… the extraordinary, beautiful one :)…
Several days before I had the experience with the Buck, I had this experience:
My general situation – had been processing what had felt like a trauma/major (unexpected) loss in my life for a couple of weeks. Had felt numb. Couldn’t write creatively at all. Tried to respond to a friend who had emailed me offering to lend some quiet companionship and a caring shoulder – and couldn’t even compose an email back to him – well, not one that I could send…
And during this numb stage, I kept thinking, just do what you need to do next and let the healing process take place…
and I stopped at a restaurant for dinner (a Marie Callenders – in the parking lot of a strip mall to be exact – across the street from lots of others stores, etc.) and had a filling, silent dinner (oh no, I’m re-experiencing the sadness as I write this…), and then walked out into the dark parking lot (not really seeing anything around me) – and got into my car. As I began to back out of the parking space – a Sarah McGlaughlin (sp?) song (I had her cd in the cd player 😉 ) – came on – and I was absolutely feeling soothed by her words “In the arms of an angel… you will find some comfort there…”
WHEN I saw a flutter of white wings (too numb to even do the ‘Am I dreaming’ check…) – and stopped the car and looked out of my open window –
at a pure, white owl that was flying – circling just above my car, and another person – a young man (I now noticed) who still wore his restaurant apron, and sat on a bike looking up at the owl as well too – And the words of Sarah’s song kept playing as I watched the pure white owl, against the dark night sky, flying lower and closer –
and FINALLY, I thought – is this real? Is this really happening? ‘WAIT,’ I thought, as this owl (who was almost at window level now), flapped it’s feathered white wings… ‘It must be hunting. That’s what it’s doing. There must be some mouse or something on the ground between that young man and I…’
And at the moment that I thought that, the owl flew up… and up… and over the restaurant, and landed atop a tall pine tree in the median of the road.
I was still sort of swallowing, and breathing 🙂 –
when I looked over to the young man on the bike –
and he looked at me, and said “GOOD, YES?” and I said “YES…”
And then I drove home feeling as if I’d been blessed.
And prayed before I went to bed that I would dream about something that would help me to believe that I could write again…
(and I imagined perhaps a dream where someone just said to me “Oh, and by the way, when you wake up, you’ll be able to write again.” 🙂 )
And instead… I woke up just after 3 in the morning, having dreamt three short stories (in manuscript, word for word form) – and grabbed some paper and wrote down two of them (confession, in the dream, I had co-written the third one with a best friend, and I had this guilt that sort of blocked me from being able to remember it very well 😉
And then I fell back asleep, and woke up again just after 4 am, with the title and a synopsis of a fourth. (Wrote that down too – still love that title 😉 )
And then when I really woke up for the day, I knew everything was going to be okay.
Life would continue.
All was not lost.
And when I wrote a writing friend (who experiences a ton of these things herself) about this – I wrote: ‘And then the owl flew up to the top of this tall pine tree… and perched there – like a star on the top of a tree… or a … oh my gosh, this is funny… but like an angel…’
Thus ends, the post about an extraordinarily beautiful creature (oops, I actually typed angel, and had to delete it) – that still feels hauntingly beautiful when I think of it right now.
Peace 🙂
For those of you who are thinking (not feeling, or sensing, but probably THINKING 😉 ) “Well, those are poetic stories that are lovely, but you know, I don’t want to hurt her feelings, but there’s nothing CONCRETE about anything there…”
😉
See, I know some of you so well, don’t I?
I say… absolutely.
And that’s okay.
We’re just getting our toes wet (because if I jumped into the deep end, we’d all poing around with much too much internal resistance…).
So why not start with the lovely and poetic?
(Although, I must say – both of those experiences are held HIGHLY SACRED by me. But they needn’t be by anyone else. SHHHHhhhh 🙂 Do spare me harsh words though if you can. I am simply sharing. And you can simply skip my posts if you’d like…)
But if I can post whenever I have a few minutes, I’ll post little, and maybe some big, things…
And eventually, there might get to be a bigger picture/view…
A pretty beautiful one I might add.
Shhhh… 😉
So quiet here tonight. Like swimming in a stream…
Last nite’s post:
While parents were visiting, we went walking along their favorite beach out here, and I did what I always do – collect shells – until I have too many too carry :).
And so I put the shells down on the sand, and send “we can pick them up on our walk back…”
and my Dad shook his head and said “someone’s going to take them…”
And I drew a circle around them, and wrote ‘Please Save’ in the sand.
And when we returned – all of the shells were there, plus several more that someone, or someones, had added (including a sand dollar which I rarely find out here).
And I smiled at my Dad, and he raised his eyebrows 🙂 And then I wrote ‘THANK YOU’ in the sand…
and we scooped up all of the shells and returned to the car.
Of course, my favorite ones from that walk will always be the gifted ones…
Night, night. 🙂
hello…
to HavAgr8Shhhh: Hi…I knew it was you…I like you…I haven’t been commenting lately because frankly, it’s been sounding really smart around here, and I’m not that smart…what’s that proverb, again…”Better for people to think you’re a dumbass than to open your keyboard and remove all doubt…”
Anyway, Frank And I have been eating pizza, drinking Corona, and reading the blogs…and although I haven’t been writing, I’ve been reading…glad you’re back…so is Frank…
I always love reading Hana’s posts.
The porcupine; the young arabian horse.
(Figs in a late summer’s salad…)
Frog – I’d hoped you were still here. And FRANK.
Yay. And of course, I think what you wrote after that was funny and humble, and completely not true – in terms of intelligence – Of course.
Jodee… the one common denominater (sp???) of all of my friends – is genuineness. We all goof up, (I actually really do think that’s the process of learning though), we all have blind spots… but when a person is genuine and authentic, I can really appreciate them. Feel so many people who have posted on here (if not all?) really have been… but you and I had that little initial wipe-out :). Thus, I wanted to tell you –
I appreciate your genuineness a ton. And I appreciate the delicacy of your last post! 🙂
Where is that Zero? While trying to sign on last night, the site froze on one of his entries that ended in essentially “And have you eaten anything like this today?” (Whole, unprocessed foods)
And I thought: “Umm, no. And THANK YOU!”
And I followed the link that Kate posted.
I guess you don’t have to run through the woods nakId after all (to get out of your head and into your whole self) – maybe sometimes you can see just see images like that…
(Merci..)
Gearing up now for a few really busy days…
xox
Dear Hav and all. I liked the stories SO much, especially the owl story.
Tonite I was reminded of my porcupine because the dog was making menacing sounds at something (lurking?) in the shadows. So I decided to go back to the car and go home. When—
out of nowhere the most beautiful young, Arabian horse walked by, all alone in a happy stride.
So now everything is back to: 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Frog— Quaaa. What is smartness for. Better simplicity (somebody, somewhere said Simplicity is Sacred.) and truthfulness, like in your post.
Jodee: 🙂
Zer0, where are you? I’m drowning in right brains here. 🙂
So, how does one tell the difference between a crackpot and a true prophet or visionary? (re: Brad’s unenlightened post.) I suppose that often it’s time that tells. Visionaries are remembered and often immortalized – eventually. Their detractors, however, slip into oblivion. Brad………………Brad who?
Jodee, I thought you are having fun with all the happy stories and smiley faces. I’m afraid I can’t contribute to the right brain image exchange going on lately. For me everything around me just is. I don’t have the need to describe it, quantize it, evaluate it, label it, save it, relive it, etc….
I experience it, enjoy it, and let go of it making room for the next moment’s gift. This is just my way of experiencing life. It is not the right way or a better way than anybody else’s. I don’t even make the attempt to remember anything. If it sticks then there is a purpose for it in the future. I avoid “telling what happened”. My wife always complains about this. If I tell what happened it will be my experience and interpretation of the events and not what actually took place. Based on my experience no two people at the same event tell the same story. They don’t experience the same thing and even if they did, what they describe is not exactly what they experience. What goes in is not what comes out. Some things are forgotten, other things are exaggerated, some things are added, etc..
So what comes out is not what “happened” but the filtered and processed version of what the observer thought has happened.
Is it possible to know the “truth” of the event?
I think the event (the action/reaction pair) is the truth. Most of the time we experience not the action but the reaction, our reaction to the action. We cannot experience the reality outside of our “self”. What we experience is our reactions to the outside stimulus. We experience with our brain. The light that falls on the retina creates an impulse that the brain interprets as color. So what you think is a red ball is just the reflected wavelength that bounces off of the ball and gets into your “brain”. You don’t see the ball, you see the reaction of the ball to the incident light, and your brain reacts to that reaction.
The same is true with the other senses (sensors). So we are unable to “see” the reality outside of our self to know the “truth”. Reality and truth are very subjective therefore.
Maybe when we die and the brain shuts down we are able to finally know the reality and the truth 🙂
What would that truth be?
I think it would be that we come from the nothingness of the universe and go back into the nothingness, and in between we are something. We are what we want to make of it. That freedom we have, the rest is up to us.
HavAgr8Day…Shhhh… This may be more serious than you like, but I’m starting to feel badly for you. And, as you have surmised, I genuinely mean that. You are proving, perhaps unwittingly, what I posted earlier: That we all formulate our identities primarily through the eyes of others from childhood on. The key is which others’ eyes we choose.
Last month you denied having dreamt manuscripts in any sort of literal sense. You got a bit defensive over that assertion, which, as it turns out, seems to have been accurate. (I would suggest that rather than it being some cosmic metaphysical occurrence, it was merely your “super computer” de-fragging itself, as it were.)
While you suggest that Dr. Dyer comes along to rescue us from ourselves by telling us that we aren’t what others thinks of us, you continue to fly in the face of that pretext.
You felt guilty for using an alter-alias. And now you just want to “share”, but don’t want any harsh criticisms. If you believe Dr. Dyer’s statement to be true, then why should you care what a bunch of strangers think of what you write or how you come up with it or what name you use doing it? You seem very insecure about yourself and I can definitely see the RCC influence in your recent posts – very heavy into the Babylonian Mystery Religion (animal spirits being a major motif,) even if you don’t recognize it as that. (Actually, the guilt was the biggest give-away.) It seems to me that you need rescuing from the church whose subliminal superstitious influences have enslaved your self-image and the way you interpret the world around you.
On the one hand, you’d probably like to known as a creative free-spirit. On the other hand, you fear it makes you look like a kook and that you won’t be taken seriously. Well, the fact is, kooks generally aren’t taken seriously, but if that’s what you want to be, then why should you care? You seem to have boxed yourself into a conundrum you can’t get out of and still have your self-esteem in tact.
If you were secure about who you are, you’d be able to step outside yourself and consider whether the opinion a stranger has of you is valid and whether or not you’ve merely surrounded yourself by people who don’t challenge you. If it’s not a valid assessment, then so what if someone you don’t even know doesn’t like you? Why should you care what THEY think of you? It only matters what people you love and respect think of you. They’re the ones that feed your good dog. (Hopefully you’ve chosen to love and respect people who actually do feed the good dog.) The rest are white noise you should be able to tune out. It’s not like we’re using our public names here. I doubt your book sales will be effected. (I guarantee you Dr. Dyer cares a great deal what the book-buying public thinks of him!) Don’t take this in a negative way, but get over yourself. The only thing we know for sure is that you definitely don’t want to thought of as someone with ADHD. 🙂
Will the real HavAgr8Day please stand up?!
Hi Jodee,
You have gathered quite a list of qualities you attribute to HavAgr8Day…Shhhh.
ZerO,
I agree when you say that reality is a moment to moment experience! And yet – it’s easy for one to get caught up in the process of describing, labeling, analyzing – such is the ability of the mind and emotions. We humans do get carried away! This not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact, it’s not possible to eliminate completely.
Better -imo- is to watch the way the mind works, and enjoy the capacity of being present to this experience.
HavAgr8Day…Shhhh,
I am glad you like the song by John Denver and his tribute to Jacques Cousteau. I am drawn to nature and the beauty it reveals.
love,
~ Kate
p.s.
Dave Bacon-
did you EVER expect your post on Wayne Dyer to stimulate so much discussion?
🙂
Right. I mean Left. The eternal Schism between Material and Non-., etc.
Before phasing-out into more appropriate realms, (and hopefully meeting Hav. and Kate and others there), I want to say I HAD A GOOD TIME here. Things I especially remember: JPQ`s picture, his remark about teenage girls wanting to console each other, his bonhomie behind the scenes; Jodee being such an axis of reason and confidence,; discussions about God, ZerO’s last post, Kate`s ~, and HavAgr8Day`s asking John G. if he was married (that was SO cute. Something I would never dare to do.) And DB`s straightforward and funny style.
me, my horse and my porcupine.
AND my little yellow 🙂
It’s such a busy few days.
But I had this sense, that everyone would be left in so much limbo – and trying to process my last posts (sort of like up above).
Zero – I really liked your last post. 🙂
And guys, don’t be worried about my reaction. Actually – not much.
The only conundrum that I feel at the moment is that I wish I could post something a bit more comprehensive – and there isn’t time right now.
But I will tonight.
For me. 🙂
PS Jodee, I don’t live in Santa Monica. (Maybe because I said I lived a mile away from the Santa Monica mountains?) I live about 45 minutes north of there. A very quiet, pretty community really. And the only other place that I’ve lived in California is Pasadena ;).
Kate, my impressions about HaveAgr8Day are the culmination of her own words and my many years of having lived in her culture. I am well aware of the effect a superficial environment can have on a person. I feel fortunate to have escaped its clutches. It’s like escaping from a cult. When you’re in it, you’re dedicated to it. Once you’ve left it, you realize how imprisoned and enslaved you were. Everywhere I’ve gone outside of that spiritually oppressive pressure zone, people have told me they think of So. Calif. as a place where you can be whatever you want to be – do whatever you want to do. They’re so mistaken. I think maybe they only feel that way because there’s an establishment there that is so different from their own, that dictates behaviors and acceptance of behaviors they would never consider doing themselves.
So. Cal. is like the artificial social order of age segregated schools – exploded. You can only be weird in certain perimeters – the ones set by those who are “in” with the top dog of “in” crowds: Hollywood. You’re only free to be who you want to be if you’re rich enough to thumb your nose at the status quo, or if you’ve managed to intrigue them to the point where you amuse them. Even then, if you step too far outside the lines, someone with even more wealth will reign you in. Think about it. Hollywood is the mecca of Scientology – one of the most oppressive religions there is. It’s entire approach to new converts is “proving” to them that there’s something wrong with them that only Scientology can fix. It is the religion of the Hollywood elite. People who feel like they don’t fit in anywhere else are drawn there and if they stay and become “successful” within that “cult” they merely end up conforming to the established non-conformity. So. Cal. is a giant oxymoron.
There’s probably varying degrees of established cultural limits on acceptability everywhere you go in the states, but some regions are less oppressive in the way that So. Cal. is. Where I am now, I can be of modest means and be as “weird” as I want to be – nobody takes notice or tries to push me down. It’s a more live and let live society. If I want to have my babies in water, I can – and without fear of being brought up on child neglect charges. (Not that I’m having anymore babies. That’s my daughters’ deal now – and in water, too!) If I want to use alternative remedies, I can without being arrested or labeled as a mental case, (which, of course, requires medication.) I can find a naturopath in every phone book. I can practice no religion or any religion as long as it doesn’t involve animal or human sacrifices, and no one cares. (Like I said, there are limits everywhere, but a lot fewer here. I can live with these.)
So, when HavAgr8Day writes that she lives in Santa Monica and loves it, that tells me a lot. Been there, done that, seen what happens to people. So sad.
Zer0, I didn’t see your post until after I posted to Kate. It struck me as very right brain. I thought you were coming to my rescue! 🙂 Just kidding. Yes, I was having some fun for a while, but I seem to have an inordinate need for hard intellectual exchange. Probably a throwback response to having lived in So. Cal. for so many years where nearly everything is grounded in the superficial, and therefore, not grounded at all. I was born there. My mom was drugged up and I was dragged out. No midwives there to offer a more peaceful entrance into the outside world. I didn’t escape until I was 35. That’s a long time to be held down and force fed.
So, what exactly does your wife complain about? That you won’t remember certain things or that you won’t relate them? We moms love talking about our kids and the things they’ve done. It’s one way that we stay bonded to them and remind ourselves that the self-sacrifice was not only worth it, it was joyful. That bonding impulse is almost involuntary. It’s like it’s unnatural NOT to have it or act on it. For many of us mommies, talking about our kids is just one of many ways to strengthen or maintain our bond with them – by relating about them. Men, on the other hand, while they may dearly love their children, as you obviously do, seem to have more detachment. A male friend of mine and father of three boys with whom he was close, once told me he was jealous of the bond his boys had with his wife, their mother. He knew he would never understand it or have a bond like that.
I don’t know that I understand it either. I just know it exists. Perhaps it stems from moms pouring so much of themselves into their kids. They’re heavily invested. They will instinctively give up their own lives for their babies without even thinking. Maybe it has something to do with growing that little human inside their bodies for 9 months. Then there’s the breast-feeding – the intermediate “external womb” between the internal womb and totally separate existence. There’s definitely something very electrical about all that – also very hormonal, as you have probably witnessed. Hormones are electrical responses (yes, I know – some say chemical, but since I don’t believe in the particle theory, it’s electrical as far as I can tell,) and they are very powerful electrical responses. Probably with magnetic elements, now that I really think about it. Hmmm. I’ll have to do some more research on that one.
I can see some elements of truth in your ideas about truth, but even a person’s view of what happened will still have some objectiveness to it. It’s rarely ONLY subjective. Uh, oh. I just veered into gray area. Reality isn’t really subjective – only our view of it is. The closer we can align our view to reality, the closer we come to truth.
That old question about the tree falling the forest and no one there to hear it comes to mind. When sound is defined as waves of vibration striking an ear drum, then the answer is: no sound. But if one defines sound as the waves themselves, generated by the action of the tree falling, then the answer is: yes, there is sound. The falling tree still produces the wave vibrations regardless of the presence of a receptor or the working ability of a receptor. Perception and/or definition don’t change the reality of the action and the subsequent reaction. The color red, as we have interpreted it, has a consistent vibration. We could have called it blue, but that wouldn’t change it’s vibration. If a person is color-blind and believes he sees a color other than red, the label we have given to that particular vibration, it is because his receptors respond differently to that vibration than do the vast majority of receptors which have been used to establish the label for that vibration. Still, the vibration is the constant. It doesn’t change in response to the receptor. The receptor responds to it and will either interpret it accurately, or misinterpret it. In other words, interpretation doesn’t change the truth of it. It either aligns with it or it doesn’t to varying degrees.
So, what is truth? I think we’re back to “what is the nature of electricity?” Perhaps when we know that, we will know what truth is.
A few various thoughts:
Definitely don’t feel in the pressure zone.
ONE of the nice things that came from all of these posts for me was actually Gary. He helped my already realization of a pattern there in my posts; one that reflected my ambivelence – and also, surpringly, parts of my self I don’t see as well.
Last night, driving home, Lao tze (woah, spelling 🙂 – was being talked about on the radio (having recently been expoxed to much – and boom, was immediately talking about the shadow side of all of us – the side that we disown – that we don’t get a chance to see as well.
Well, I was thinking, if nothing else, I can’t take something from this and use if for my own personal growth. 🙂
Next thing Lao Tze discussion went on to was: the spiritual value of the number 40. Was thinking “Never heard that before…” when I looked up – and there was a sign post flashing he speed that I was driving. 40… Just fun. 🙂
Anyway…
I am really tuckered out. LONG day.
So if my posts have typos, it’s more a result of being a bit blurry eyes. I’ll try though :).
____________________
I think one of the tough things on blogs like this, is that, it really can be difficult to have the time available to post something worthwhile when juggling, as we all are – so many different demands. And then, it’s really easy for mis-interpretations/etc. to be made due to the sort of the nature of the beast (ZERO, you are definitely not that :).
I may just to be too wiped tonight (up at 5:00 am , and it’s about… ? 9:00 pm now.) to write what I was hoping. Maybe I’ll try one post, and then, if it is too tuckered out – I’ll try again, tomorrow?
YES, TOO TIRED. Couple posts above: I wrote, “Well, I was thinking, if nothing else, I CAN’T take something from this and use it for my own personal growth.”
Funny, I sincerely feel – I CAN take something from this…NOT a freudian slip :). Really, just too sleepy.
So I’ll end with this and give it another shot tomorrow:
I do think critical/independent thinking needs to be learned and sort of integrated into one’s self – before one moves on to the more organic, artistic, etc. ways of enjoying the world.
Or perhaps, that’s the way it has worked best for me. Thus, when I make those poetic leaps (which really nourish my writing), it doesn’t feel very scary. The bottom line is always The Golden Rule, being a good, responsible person living a good life, and then… when those sort of lovely poetic moments come along…
being able to just go… oooohh. “Good, Yes?” “Yes.”
I’ll do better tomorrow. I hope 🙂
Until friday, I’m sort of UP to my ears in it at the moment thought…
xox
My mistake HADS, but you’re still in the pressure zone. It’s fingers are long and penetrating, like a cancer stealing as many souls as it can; calling good that which is self-destructive and attempting to make quivering cowards and mindless minions out of its patrons.
Zer0, HAG8D…S loves your last post! See? I told you it was right brain. 🙂
Jodee, although I agree with you in general regarding bonding between parents and children, I believe the amount and quality of time spent plays a big role.
If the father works all day and can only spend a few hours a day with the child then the bond may not be as tight as with the mother who spends most of the day with the child seeing to their every need. So there is an association between mommy and needs being taken care of. I’m sure if the roles were reversed and daddy stayed home and mommy was working all day there would be a possibility of a stronger bond with the father. But there are other forms and levels of bonding as the child grows and is not as dependent on mommy.
My wife complains about me not reporting to her everything that happens in her absence. If I was at a gathering she wants to know in detail who said what, how they said it, when they said it, who was wearing what, when they arrived and left, etc.. I feel like I’m in interrogation. I just answer a few of her questions (whatever I could remember) then tell her that I don’t remember anything more because it isn’t important to me to remember all those details. We are complete opposites. I’ll leave it at that.
What is reality? Is the red ball or the tree in the forest real? If we experience everything with our brain then our reality is fabricated by our brain. If we are not able to directly experience anything outside of the self then we can only speculate about the reality outside of the self. The more sensors can send info to the brain the better speculation the brain can make. But since we only have a limited number of sensors the speculation is going to be very rough. All the new instruments that we make are only an extension of the brain. The data still has to be processed by the brain and incorporated into the existing fabricated reality.
There is no solid reality. The things that appear solid are mostly empty and in a continuous change and exchange. The form looks static but there is a continuous flow of energy through the form. Like a waterfall, the water molecules that make up the waterfall are continuously replaced by new molecules. We tend to think of reality as a frozen waterfall, static and solid.
Can we trust the brain to depict an accurate picture of reality? The brain is as good as the “software” that drives it. The brain is hardwired. The software can be continuously updated. We are given that option. The reality that one experiences depends on their willingness and capacity to upgrade their software. There are people who are running on version 1.0 of the software and there are those who have upgraded to version 10. Since there is no way to directly measure reality outside of self then it is a virtual reality. Most people can’t deal with that virtual reality so for them the fabricated reality is the only reality that they can relate to.
Got to go now.
To be continued.
HAG8D, thanks, glad you saw something useful there.
Jodee, I don’t believe in the separation of left and right brains. For me there is only one brain and it can express itself in any way possible. I’m surprised that you bought into the right/left (either/or, black/white) mentality for the brain. It’s both. It’s a gray matter after all 🙂
As far as localities: I live in So.Cal, sort of in the center of it. I see it all, the good, the bad, and the ugly. How do you survive in the melting pot? It all depends on the software you are running on, how you process the influx of information and how you choose to react.
Oh, looks like I was the lucky one to post #666
Yes, I am the beast 🙂
Now everyone knows it…..
I love you all.
I love YOU all too Wayne 🙂
(You should skip my last post 🙂 – cuz, I think the above pretty much is the important stuff 🙂
The one that Wayne should skip (will just sound like blah, blah…blah 🙂
In terms of brains: I’m with you Zero: we have one matter (da grey stuff :). (Liked that comment)
I think for me, I probably started referring to the r/l hemi because that’s something I’m really familiar with in my NON AS creative profession – working, in part, with people who have have brain damage due to things like strokes, gun shots, cerbral palsy, car accidents… Anyway, if a person has a stroke one night, and wakes up the next morning, suddenly finding out that although they can still THINK clearly, but that whenever they go to speak, it sounds like gobbly gook – it’s nice to be able to explain to them (and family) that that is just a sign that a relatively specific area of the brain has been (hopefully only) temporarily damaged – and that as the brain swelling goes down (that can be a part of the healing process, depending), some of the symptoms will probably resolve on their own, and some of them our amazing brain will just find ways to compensate for it, and to in essence, re-wire itself around it. A tiny bit more blah, blah, blah… if someone has a stroke on the right side of their brain, in general, it’s the left side of the body that is affected. If the frontal lobe and/or limbic area is affected, that can be helpful to let the person know too. That way, if s/he is suddenly feeling a crazy range of feelings, blue, crying, lashing out, or whatever – they can understand better what is going on – feel hopefull, have a context for things that help the rest of them (their whole self) feel a bit soothed…
Anyway, that’s sort of where all of that talk for me started with.
And I know for sure that the I draw on skills like executive functioning/organzing (located more in certain area of brain) ALOT MORE when I’m working as a consultant – then when I’m working as a writer 🙂 🙂
Oooops – as a CREATIVE WRITER. And then, should really write… playing as a creative writer :).
xox
Trying to get this in before I’m headin’ off for day – so not so many typos 🙂
About the synchronistic, creative, WONDER stuff:
the stuff that’s put some real bedazzle into my life:
I can’t re-invent the wheel here, that’s for sure.
I really think, as I’ve said a bazillion times (bazillion – creative speak for, ummm, maybe nine or ten? 🙂 already – that Wayne Dyer’s INSPIRATION talk on PBS really captured it all for me – and summed it up really nice for me with his last example of using Van Gogh as an artist in terms of timing… (if you didn’t see that talk, maybe see it so I don’t have to blah, blah, blah it?) 🙂
For me, one of the greatest gifts I’ve ever received – have been all of the remarkable – whatever we want to call it – luck, coincidences, synchronicity, ?? that began to happen went to change my life dramatically about eight years ago – making the decision to truly pursue what pursued me too the most (creative writing – and most often, a very specific genre of it that it is very lovely, uplifting – to me anyway) – it was if the whole world sort of cracked open (poetic speak) and began helping.
Random examples: Almost immediately find myself sitting on a plane next to an editor from a publishing house that I loved (wouldn’t have even known or asked what he did, but he was reviewing a submission).
Again, really early on: meeting a writing friend (who will be a lifetime friend, no getting around it) – who had some interest from an agent – but the story she given him wasn’t receiving any response and the situation was losing steam, and she finally took me up on my URGING to PLEASE send him a different manuscript (my favorite) – and that was the book that began a bidding war for her – and led to almost nine other books being purchased by that, and additional houses in very quick succession (manuscripts purchased before books had even come out). (Anyway, but that’s the way it’s been from the moment the two of us have met – BOTH ways.) (Btw, this friend lives in the midwest).
To mix in an example that Jodee won’t resonate with, but that’s okay: no biggee, think flow and fun…
With same friend, she sent me an email on my birthday this year, saying she kept seeing this butterfly as she was writing it…
And I wrote her back, telling her that when I had opened the door for the first time that birthday morn – this HUGE yellow butterfly (some look almost mechanical to me) was fluttering on the flowers on my front porch (first time there – on patio often, but not on porch :). Happiness. So pretty. And it hung around the flowers – flew around me, and my pup, in a circle – and then sat back on the flowers. Love butterflies – made me reluctant to head off for my pup’s walk (well, you know, finally had to…)
Also, the way I found one of my writing mentors too – complete fluke, yet, SO… I just can’t imagine how life would have been/would be, had this fluke not brought us together.
One last funny one:
I don’t do interview type books or articles – but I’ve always had a dream (for like the last ten years or so) in at one point doing a book of interviews from a certain perspective that I would find (and would hope others would too) really inspiring… (Still sort of need to work up to that one 🙂
But the funny part of it: one of the people I’d love to interview for it (in my perfect world) (and besides people like Elie Viesel, Jimmy Carter, etc.) – is a commedian that I think has wonderful, dynamic humor. Okay, the funny and strange coinkidinc:
Was at the local bank several years ago, when this comedian got in line behind me. He’s VERY tall, VERY broad, and was wearing a VERY blue jogging suit (thus, a little hard to notice, even peripherally… :).
Anyway, I certainly wasn’t going to talk to him about the book of interviews concept – because I just didn’t feel it was the time (in my life) or place (for him).
But I believe in encouragement ALOT – and, seeing as he was just behind me, I turned to him, and said (quietly), “you know, I just wanted to tell you that I think your commedy is really original and positive, and I appreciate it.” Anyway, then followed one of the funniest, silliest, goofiest five or ten minutes of any time I’ve spent in a bank… 🙂
CONTINUED: this year, I received a phone call, from a woman sounding panicked, and asking for a man’s first name (who does not live here). I kept reassuring her, and telling her that she must have the wrong number.
The following day, I read online that there had been a rumor/big to-do about this particular comedian having died the previous day. In the blurb, they gave the comedian’s real name – and his first name was the name that the woman had called me about the previous night. Me: ‘Could she possibly have been calling for him? Are our phone numbers so close that she could have mis-dialed???… Well, I’ll never know…’
TWO DAYS LATER: I stopped at the local bank – spontaneously on a saturday. I was the only customer in the bank. Just as I was completing my slip, I saw the teller’s eyes twinkle :), and she nodded to the person who was just walking in behind me.
Me: Hey!! I’m done… So I walk up to the teller (the little twinkle in her eyes sort of dimms, just a little) and in the middle of my transaction – I realize I need another form. I turn around – and – this is where to anyone who knows me, I don’t have to say anything. They just shake their head laughing. And then I proceed to tell the rest of the story.
(But to people on blogs who don’t – the person behind me was of course the comedian??!!)
Anyway, we then proceeded to have one of our second very hillarious interactions (after I did one of the ‘am I awake, or am I asleep…’ checks…)
Anyway, this post is long enough. But just a few examples of how much everything around me seems to have decided to help once I leapt toward what my heart truly wanted to do the most.
What does it mean? Not sure. Will it probably always stay this way? I sure would love it – but I’d KNOW that I have no control over it. Only, I sure do LOVE it.
And I’m guessing that so many people – somewhere, if not here 🙂 – have had similar experiences.
(By the way, all of the above doesn’t cancel out that I still experienced challenges, as well as having some people that I’ve loved pass over, pass away… during the last period of years as well. It’s been a real life… But one I’ve been so thankful for.)
But like I said, wasn’t thinking I was going to re-invent the wheel with just one morning post 🙂
Last one, about the psychic mentions…
Since I’ve never been driven to try to become psychic, when things happen, they don’t normally scare me. Especially because they are generally positive/neutral/ or just silly 🙂
(My sister-in-law used to call me that name of the psychic on Saturday Night Live that used to have all the really unimportant psychic revelations like: “I see you… you are going to… spill your coffee on yourself this morning…” 🙂
Anyway, just a more real example of what I’ve meant when I’ve referred to it:
The person I referred to during the antlered buck experience (the one I was worrying about) is someone I’ve known since we’ve been kids (older kids, not elementary) – and have always had some sort of really strong connection with.
Anyway: psychic (silly) example: A couple of years ago, while lots was going on in his life, I began to have these – they felt like little bolts of lighting zipping through me. About (ta-da, the silly thing) – him sending me emails. ????
I would be at a charity I work for, most often doing an evaluation or talking with a client – and all of a sudden I’d get zapped ‘Michael just sent you an email.’ And I’d sort of shake my head and go ‘okay,’, and get back to work.
Anyway, after going home and finding out that there’d always be an email from him on those days, I started to change the ways I was doing things.
Whenever I’d get zapped, I’d ask the client, “do you mind if I write down the time?” and I also told one of my good friends at the charity about it. So then, when I was done with the eval or whatever, I’d go grab my friend, and we’d check on his office computer.
The funny thing: there was always a THREE MINUTE delay. I would write down 2:35 – and the email would say 2:32. My friend at the charity (sucha funny guy) had a whole set of jokes for it and why. But finally, I thought, maybe I’m not picking up on receiving his email, but my friend’s thoughts after he sends it?
Anyway, that particular thing really seemed to stop happening almost completely once things smoothed out in his life – at least for quite a while (the smoothing out). Haven’t had any zaps
for quite a while… 🙂
Some of my favorite things and memories 🙂
Hana’s POEM (see, your writing did come into my life)
DB – in general (DB, I “see” you becoming less grumpy over the years; if in fact you were ever 🙂
Gary’s reflecting-lesson to me
Joe Q – and all the really valid concerns he had over the underlying concepts (CONCEPTS, not people 🙂 – regarding some of the things talked about here – and his desire to talk about them with care. AND (with Hana here – seeing his picture with his wife and granddaughter).
KATE (simple enough? 🙂
Nez’s moments – brilliant
Frog’s heart 🙂 (Wow did I want a Corona the other day 😉
Zero – (think you have a really wide-open, exploring mind. Enjoyed reading your posts a lot Zero. {And your one on nutrition was a great reminder for me when I get too busy})
Jodee – I think you have a phenomenal sense of humor. Loved your post on your daughter (wanted to become her friend), and your post on the forehead stamp. Even though, for what ever reason, there seemed to be more ? misinterpretations – than I think real communication between us, I still think you’re really genuine. And a GOOD, independent thinking, SMART woman.
JOE G, his WIFE, and all of the sweet help/they tried to give me as I made my way 🙂
Wa tsu 🙂
Wayne’s last post.
And everyone else here. (Really)
Above should have said JohnPQ #4 – see, now rushing to head off to work day 🙂
*** Maybe scroll up seven posts (oiy – seven!)
and read the one just above first.
I think that is the one that everybody is maybe supposed to see first.
🙂 🙂 ***
***Most 🙂 ***
Zero,
those entries were my bon voyage. 🙂
Bon voyage to you.
And to all.
And lots of good wishes for whatever anyone wishes for…
PS However, if anyone I’ve posted with ever wants to stop by for a barbecue 😉 – I give D.B. permission to give my email to anyone of you above (if he has the time :).
(Hana mentioned posted something about she, I and Kate connecting in some other way? … always welcome as well!)
Again, good wishes for all that each of you wish!
HAG8D…Shhhh…
I feel like I’m reading your diary or your personal blog when I read most of your posts. If you could, please spend time to formulate your thoughts in a concise form and present it in a logical fashion with some structure. If you are tired and sleepy and want to record your thoughts, please put them on a piece of paper instead of this blog.
Thank you 🙂
Kewl! Can I come? I’ll bring the bong!
“Kewl! Can I come? I’ll bring the bong!”
For that barbecue you’ll need a bong, some mescalin, some Ravi Shankar music and a few hours listening to subliminal messages from Ayn Rand tapes. Then you’ll a grand time.
“Then you’ll a grand time.” Typo. Should have been “have a grand time”.
I’ve gotta cut back on the brown acid.
Let me review what I take away from here:
1.God is a giant electron.
2.The government is running a concentration camp in my backyard but I’m too distracted by the economists who created Jesus to notice the dead bodies being carried off in my wheel barrel.
3.Agent Smith is real and we should take the red pill to target “the Shepard.â€
4.White owls construct stories by circling waiters still in their aprons.
5.DNA differs in humans to the same degree as various dog breeds, so humans can and should be bred for temperament. (And just when I thought eugenics was dead.)
6.Everything is a conspiracy. (Including this post, this forum, and the University of Washington. Which reminds me, I need to meet with Alan Greenspan later to talk about my next post.)
7.There are people who can actually suggest topics that I can’t see with my telescope. (??)
8.Gary is a chauvinist pig for snickering.
9.Zer0 is just an experience processing machine who finds no value in recall. (??)
10. The universe organized itself such that 6 X 10^-9 of the earthly population driving 40 mph occurred at almost the precise moment as radio waves modulated to the word “forty.†(Now that is extraordinary planning.)
11.Receding to a child-like state is superior to being a thinking adult.
12.You’re only a real thinker if no one else thinks so.
13.As long as you have good intentions it doesn’t matter what you sell to people. Or the corollary, emotional reactions are superior to analysis and for $300 I can give that to you on paper and a DVD.
14.Someone keeps forgetting her Ritalin.
15.Dyer can overpower my argumentative ways with love. (He better not dare touch me.)
16.“Unconsciousness†(not subconsciousness) is a superior state for writing.
17.And finally: Southern California, the part of the state responsible for Pete Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Darryl Issa (49th district congressman, dead center So Cal., who organized a recall of a democratic incumbent governor), proposition 187 (which was approved by 72% in Los Angeles alone), proposition 13, not to mention sixteen straight years of Republican governors, is largely ruled by the liberal elite and their inescapable scientologist views. (I wondered why L. Ron Hubbard was on our stamps.)
Yes, I am the wiser now.
Dr. Bacon (DB),
I regretfully inform you that I retract the post in which I give you permission to give out my email address.
(Can’t have a bunch of discontents bringing drugs into my yard. 🙂 )
**The real reason: My attorney informed me that that hadn’t been such a great idea to begin with…
Thanks. 🙂
PS And for all the creative writers out there – scratch JQP’s number #16 – use everything: the conscious, the unconscious, AND the subconscious.
Now, back to yoru regularly scheduled programming.
Take it away JQP……..
For the worriers: “Now bAck to YOUR regularly scheduled programming…”
😉
LOL, JQP. I thank the great electron that common sense (and humor) still exist out there somewhere.
JQP,
I was glad to see you back too – but I was hoping you were going to regale us with all of the wonderful charity work you had done while you were away.
Or, you know, the non-nakId runnin’ you had been doin’.
Alas, I don’t have a sari – but i think they’re awfully PERTY. (DON’T worry – meant to write PERTY! Whew.)
I really did have a DREAM: that all of us would have a barbeque somewhere, somehow. Too many interesting souls on this board.
But, I’m listenin’ to my attorney’s advice re: my email address and home. Never steered me wrong before ;).
(Plus, you know, I’d HAVE to include Wayne Dyer {INSPIRATION tape guys…) at that bbq – and you’d get YOUR sari all in a twist. Which, you know, might help you loosen up a bit in the end ;).
Now, I’m takin’ the advice I gave to you, and am headin’ off to: do some work at a charity, sit in a meadow (prefer them to woods when it’s an either/or), and get then come home and get some good lovin’ – all in one day.
Busy day.
Busy week.
Busy year.
Glad you read the posts.
I can see some wing buds sproutin’ on your back 😉
Ta-ta……..
JQP’s #17 is ancient history.
Right and left brains are not separate, but perform separate functions. Women have more connections between the two halves than men (generally speaking), which is probably why they tend to be more relational, which is why, Zer0, your wife wants to know all the details and you don’t really give a hoot about them.Quality time with kids is always bonding, but the example I sighted was from a stay at home dad and a working mom, so go figure. And who do most athletes always say hi to on camera? MOM. It is evident, however, that Tiger Woods and Michael Jordon may have been closer to Dad. There are always exceptions.
Funny stuff, JQP.
JohnQPublic, I think that list contains all of the workings of a great Philip K. Dick novel.
Oh, don’t get your sari in a twist. I was only teasing.
JQP, good to see you back. 🙂
I hope you are staying.
Is everything OK with you? You disappeared without warning. I was wondering all this time if you were OK or not.
Good entrance though (clap, clap, clap…) 🙂
I’m going to process this experience first with my right brain then with my left brain, followed by my intestines, then send it down my colon, and then ….. ,but I can’t guaranty that I’ll remember it tomorrow 🙂 My hard drive is shot.
Jodee, if you asked me what exactly (in detail, all 17 points) did JQP post about above, I would tell you that I don’t remember and I would refer you to his post so you could read it first hand. I read his post, I understood what he wrote in my own way and made conclusions based on my understanding of it. To me it no longer matters what exact words he used, how many points he had and how many question marks he used on item #9.
If I attempt to describe to you JQP’s post I would be misinforming you, because even if I get 90% of it correctly the 10% left out could contain something critical that would give you a different impression about the whole thing. It is not that the details don’t matter to me, it is that the details are where the devil is. That is why I would rather refer people to the source of the information than become a contaminated source of the original information. For the same reason I don’t take anything that anybody tells me as facts. If I need accurate info I go to the source if possible. If it’s not possible then I treat the info as an opinion. Since there are people who don’t differentiate between facts and opinion I am hesitant to tell anything to anyone because they may treat my opinions as facts and be misguided.
I hope it is clear to everyone here that my posts are only my opinions and I don’t claim that they are anything more than that.
Jodee, are you saying that the brain (left or right) is where the thought or the precursor of thought originates? Before you answer check this out and think about it.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/Living-without-a-Brain.html
I think the brain is just an input/output device. The actual thoughts are created somewhere else. Can a thought be measured with any instrument? If you measure something, is it the action of the thought (the thought itself) or the reaction of something to the thought?
Can a thought be measured with any instrument?
Yes. We measure thoughts all the time. And every day we get better and better at measuring them. Forcing thoughts of thoughts hiding away from instruments into a smaller and smaller location.
Explaining sometimes takes the fun out of things. But I’ll do it anyway because I don’t want to hurt anyone. My list is the group’s words and partial ideas twisted around just a bit. Words were deliberately dropped, added or juxtaposed to make a partial idea seem nonsensical. Or I was poking fun at some the some of the personas that developed a life of their own in here. None of the items accurately reflect the point the originator was trying to make at the time of the post. The question marks denote when something struck me as really unusual. For example, by dropping the word “scientific” in #7, the “telescope” is no longer a metaphor, which is how you intended it, and becomes literal and reallying making no sense at all.
I really did not intend to start pulling the talk in a new way. I saw a number of posts from others listing what they learned, and I put my own twist on it. And I certainly did not intend for HAGDS to become fearful, consult an attorney (geesh) and retract an invitation that someone may have wanted to take her up on.
So, that’s that.
JQP,
Aww, you’re a (too) softy at heart 😉
I didn’t consult an attorney – my sister IS my attorney (a part of my prof. creative team). And she just said, “You’ve had your fun, now, uh-unh” 🙂
I still “see” a bbq, sometime, the right time, some where, the right where….
Now, here’s a WIERD one: my response to Dave’s last post was gonna be “Dick Cheney HAS a heart?”
(But OF COURSE he does, and that was just not nearly as nice as it should have been on MY PART…) I liked YOUR response much better JQP.
Rest easy.
***
Kate, I hope we one day talk about saris… and even your visit with someone whom, (although I never met her), I loved deeply.
***
HavinAgreatWeek 🙂
Dave, let me know if you find one cornered in your office. I’ll bring my probe to measure it.
Do we have to kill it first or do you think it will surrender peacefully? I would hate to damage the fur on it.
Interesting, Dave. So, what technically constitutes a thought exactly? What are the boundaries that distinguish one set of excited neurons vs. another? For example, is there a distinction between neural networks that excite on sensory input vs. our internal monologue or, say, reminiscing? (I realize there would be a difference in location, but is there something about their structure that varies and can be measured?)
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/17458/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4P8B0SM-B&_user=582538&_coverDate=10%2F15%2F2007&_rdoc=24&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236968%232007%23999619998%23669276%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6968&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=24&_acct=C000029718&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=582538&md5=008e14f4b6490e68feb37a83e602d338
Dave, I couldn’t open the second link.
First link just says that they are detecting an activity in the brain associated with the thought. They are not measuring the thought itself.
If you read only the first sentence in my last post and nothing above or below it would you be able to get my thought? I don’t think so. All you would have would be a string of letters formed into words. You would generate your own thought or an image in your mind based on that chain of words.
Perhaps I’m not expressing myself coherently.
Why in the world would you believe that thougths can’t be measured?
The actual thoughts are created somewhere else. Where exactly? Lala land? On the moon? From a particular hemoglobin cell in Dick Cheney’s heart?
Ha! LOL! Let’s hope it’s that part of Dick’s anatomy.
dave bacon,
You are a humorist at heart!
HaGd,
saris are amazingly beautiful gowns, with fabrics and colors that are vibrant.
JQP,
18. “crying” over WD’s ‘Inspiration’ on PBS has inspired …. 700 plus comments!
~ Kate
Hav. Seems to me THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE, but better late than later. For Email exchange, you can call me XXX-XX-XXXXXX. I’m 7h ahead your east coast. [editors note: phone number deleted at request of author]
Hana and Kate –
WONDERFUL. Would love the chance to get to know both of you a bit more…
****
All that all areas of science bring to the table only expands my wonder…
And my posts were not meant to be conclusions.
(That’s why I ended up making them so brief… realized what JQP wrote way up in the posts: no possible way to do any of it justice with the limited time etc. I had to write about it in here.)
Plus, WAY too much clarification would have been needed (Thought that as soon as I read the processing regarding my first two…)
_________________
(For Zero – regarding the science of the brain and of the body and how it really does all communicate with each other… Not sure if this helps with what you were asking, but the brain definitely receives info from other areas of the body – the “gutt” (general term for many organs etc. in that area), the pituitary gland, etc – that information delivered to the brain can spur thoughts. And not to debate the Bacon – cuz I really do like him so much ;), (and really don’t like debatin’) but you might want to ask a neurologist/neuropsychologist about the latest findings in terms of brain imaging etc. in their respective fields (regarding the ability to study the length of ONE specific thought…). I work closely with quite a few, and I haven’t heard a definitive conclusion on anything like that. HOWEVER, a PSYCHIC might be able to give you that info 😉 🙂
+ one more ;).
____________
Kate, thanks for having the strength to engage in an important conversation (above) without it tiring you out. 🙂 I’ll out myself fully as believing in a creator – one that I think the window of science will eventually see much more clearly too… (But that’s just a thought, not a conclusion)
(Me – too easily drained of energy needed for other things to engage as well as you in this area! Or just – too easily drained?)
_________________
PS Now y’all go watch Wayne’s Dyer’s INSPIRATION tape 🙂 – if ya haven’t already.
(JQP, we can watch it together wearing our saris 😉 )
_______________________
TTFN (Ta-ta for now, and PERHAPS for quite a while)
(had to copy and paste Hana’s and Kate’s info, so I’m still here…)
Gary, who brought up astrology? Your comment, with ALL of it’s duality, WAS very funny.
Good wishes to you both,
TTFN…..
Kate,
are you a musical artist? Or was that link a beautiful gift?
____________________________
JQP, I’d have fun playing poker with you.
(And your wife 🙂
But my east coast attorney sis has already put her foot down.
Ah well…..
_____________________________________
Will be checking back sooner than I thought to find out about Kate’s link 😉
I don’t think Hana lives near the Santa Monica mountains.
The best exchange in this forum are the posts dated from 4/30/2007 through 5/30/2007. You can see exactly where DB stands. I think the point, “…that there is more to be gained in a robust society which is not content with its place in the universe”, are very true words. What would a content and, it follows, complacent world be like? What would push it to improve itself?
Maybe it would be like the walking-asleep in Logan’s Run. Yuck!
Thoughts are measurable because they are electrical and to whatever degree we can measure electricity, we can measure thoughts, or at least the energy they generate. If we are, to some extent, mini-me’s of a creator or creators, or even just different aspects of the universe, (which is electrical,) then the idea that we can generate thought in the brain is not so far-fetched.
JQP, I thought your list was hilarious! Glad to see you back, BTW.
Oh, and #17 also gave us the Brown boys: Jerry and Ron, also ancient history. I hear Jerry is trying to make a comeback. Unless the life-after-death thing is for real, at least you won’t have Ron to contend with.
“…the universe, (which is electrical,)”
I do not understand this. The electromagnetic force is one of four known forces, i.e.: EM, strong and weak nuclear and gravity. The GUT (Grand Unified Theory) seeks to find the common basis behind all of them, but to define existence (by definition, the ‘Universe’) as based on just one aspect of one known force makes no sense. Electricity as we know it is only the movement of electrons across a positive/negative differential (potential, measured in Volts). One of the keys to understanding the universe is not the effect of this potential on charged particles but the nature of (and reason for) this positive/negative duality in the first place.
Basically, saying that the entire Universe is electrical is like saying a car moves because it is red.
Thanks, Jodee.
1. Darryl Issa’s product, last I looked, is still in the mansion smoking cigars, driving his eco converted Hummer, and mispronouncing his state’s name. (Well, he’s there at least during the cold winters and election years.) So, not so old news. I’m not trying to paint Southern California a “red state,” but the outside perception of its liberal politics and wacky cults (like Scientology) is overblown and way over-generalized. In my county here in So. Cal., 75% are registered republicans currently, which does not include me, by the way. Orange County is largely conservative, and San Diego, where I’m originally from, is the home of folks like Duncan Hunter (arch conservative backed by Ann Coulter) and is very conservative in its politics. I am willing to bet San Diego is more than 50% Republican. The California stereotype does not hold when you look at its demographics. My politics? Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I have lived in So. Cal. all my life and my politics are not locally uncommon at all.
(“Moonbeam” Jerry is going to get any traction anymore.)
2. Why must we have a creator?
Zer0, is it just me or are you getting a little defensive? I didn’t mean the “don’t give a hoot” as an insult, by any means. People, regardless of gender, tend to remember the things/details that are important to them. Frankly, I would probably find myself in a similar boat as you in the party scenario. I don’t care about the externals, and most of what people say at parties I find irrelevant anyway, so I would make a lousy reporter for wife, too. Those devilish details maybe part of her relational associations.
I might be helpful for you and your wife to see yourselves as complimentary instead of opposite. Then it’s easier to appreciate the differences and not see them as a source of contention. (re: her complaining about it.) You are who you are and you’re both great. That’s an assumption based on the fact that you impress me as a pretty neat guy and I don’t see you being stupid about choosing a wife.
The disadvantage to writing is that the other person can’t hear your tone of voice or see your facial expressions. Believe me, I’m smiling and often laughing most of the time. These 🙂 are a bit limiting, but will have to suffice, I guess. :-):-):-)
JQP, my parents just moved from SD a couple years ago. You’d never convince them it was conservative. Granted it used to be.
And the main reason I think there must be a creator is that I can’t wrap my brain around a series of randomly happily coincidental events. The evidence doesn’t back that up either. There’s a DVD out called Unlocking the Secrets of DNA. It’s absolutely fascinating. Check it out. Lot’s of your type science guys on there, so you should feel at home.
1. Well, since I take it your parents are devoutly Catholic, and likely socially conservative, yeah they might see SD–and probably the whole country–as ruled by leftists. So, that stands to reason.
2. Before I look at your suggestion, couldn’t there be yet another conspiracy behind your DVD? I don’t want to be sucked away from my comfortable consumer slavery for an uncomfortable life growing beets and trading with needles and cows.
3. Zer0 is not getting the kind of “love” (i.e., debate) he wanted from DB, I think. My personal suggestion to Zer0: you present more observations than significance. It’s hard to comment on just observations unless the consequences of them are either explained or understood. You need to take it to the next step. For example, you cite that paradoxical polarities exist together and instantaneously. Okay. What is the significance of that? Where does that lead us?
JQP, correction – that’s “Unlocking the Mysteries of DNA”.
Gary, your definition of electricity is much too limiting. “Electricity as we know it is only the movement of electrons across a positive/negative differential (potential, measured in Volts). ”
You gave yourself a clue when you qualified it with “as we know it.” I don’t think we’ll ever know all there is to know about it.
Aww, Kate’s still not back…
Off for the week-end for me.
PS JQP, no, sarcasm doesn’t escape me – I just respond in a way to try to transform it into something kinder. 🙂
Works for me – doesn’t need to work for you however.
“Zer0, is it just me or are you getting a little defensive?”
Jodee, it is you, I’m not getting defensive at all. I don’t know what led you to come to that conclusion.
I’ll use more smiley faces if that will help.
🙂 🙂 🙂
“I don’t think we’ll ever know all there is to know about it.”
What, please, is the point of discussing what we do not know? Then why don’t we discuss the proliferation of blue zorkins on the moons of Xylock?
My point is…if you want to make up a new name for the matter/energy/spacetime structure of the Universe, fine. Unfortunately, ‘Electricity’ is already taken. That’s even worse than Dyer’s usurpation of ‘Energy’. And it also appears you don’t (really) know all that much about this electricity stuff, do you?
for you dear HaGd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fraW1HmI_vI&mode=related&search=
JQP,
Is it not possible that the mystery of life is unravelled
within the understanding
that there is a
‘creator’
(perhaps more than one!)
which began this
amazing Life/Universe
?
~ Kate
I have to agree with, Gary. The need to fill the mysterious with outright speculation has been one of my themes, as well. That is one thing I don’t get from the HAGDS camp, either. When we can and do explain mysteries the “new agers” say it takes the wonderment out of nature’s beauty. On the other, there is an attempt in their camp to explain other mysteries with all kinds of made up idle speculation.
We all know humankind has always speculated on the big questions. It is our nature. But the problem is when it stops there and the speculation is taken as fact.
JQP, last post #3
Wrong conclusion re. DB, but good suggestion re. the completeness of my posts. I will take the next step.
But you and everyone else have to play by the same rules also. 🙂
If my replies are a little late it’s because I’m at work and have higher priorities at the moment.
Also, the evenings and the weekends the computer is off limits for me. I got a 20 month old daughter and lots of projects around the house that never end.
You know anyone who sells time? I’ll pay cash 🙂
Kate, I think creating a creator raises more questions than it could ever answer. So, I believe that it takes us further from unravelling the mysteries and for all the traditional philosophical reasons brought up so many time in these discussions. Who created the creator? If no one, then there really is spontaneous generation (which leads to leads to so many more questions)? Why did the creator design so many useless objects? (Do we really need Pluto anymore? After all, it was lying to us and turned out to not really be a planet.) And what about all the debris in the Kupier belt? And the amount of wasted genes found in DNA? And the billions and billions of planets that have absolutely no affect on anything anywhere?
The idea of a designer gets us no closer.
Hi JQP,
as always you ask great questions.
I believe
based on the evidence I see,
there is a reason for every piece of anything,
whether we dub it useful, or not.
( I agree, debris doesn’t ‘seem’ to serve a purpose. The waste from the galazy – or even the local dumpster – provides a challenge as to how to despose of waste!)
I believe there is a way to explain the origin of things scientifically (not that I can site equations- other that Einstein’s famous – you know 🙂
and still allow for the mystery of who/what began it ALL (the creator/co-creator).
~ Kate
So then, Kate, do you believe there will be a purpose for these things beyond human life? That is, it is known that our sun will eventually run out of hydrogen, become a red giant and will most as undoubtedly swallow the earth and all if its life here. Life in our solar system is not permanent. What will the purpose then be devoid of any earthly life?
There are several possibiliites as I see it, for human life to survive beyond the sun’s demise.
It could involve our leaving planet earth and traveling into the galaxy and setting up shop where the environment is hospitable.
Can we continue to evolve on earth, and morph into something beyond what we as humans are now? With greater abilities to survive harsh environments (we manage this now, even in the face of nature’s events)
Science has already made cloning animals possible. What say you about cloning humans?
I can’t tell you the purpose of the sunset, but I can describe the beauty of it’s majesty as I see and feel it.
Is it possible to live without a purpose? And let life unfold and when death comes, the next stage of the journey – whatever it is – will be revealed then (it’s then, or – never 🙂
~ Kate
True. But here is what I believe is the dividing line in our views: is that extended life destined or simply the work of free willed humans? That is, do you believe it is *possible* that humankind won’t get off the planet in time because we create our own destiny? If so, then the whole purpose of the universe seems to dissipate. If we have freewill then we have the ability to (unwittingly) defeat any higher purpose. Can higher purpose exist if it relies on the random outcomes of free will?
Maybe the ‘higher purpose’ is to simply observe the random outcomes of free will.:-D
Plus, this debate begs the question: if there is a higher purpose to the Universe, who ever said humans have anything to do with it? The developer is buldozing for the new high rise and two caterpillars debate if their universe will have meaning when the bulldozer arrives. They may not, but their ‘universe’, though changed, will continue with or without them. Arrogant little caterpillars.
Cloning humans? I like the idea of some of its possibilities, but not in the way I think you’re suggesting. I dislike the idea of fully developed clones (if that will be possible) because of how they could be used. (A little of an Orwellian side of me that we see a lot in Jodee.) If we can raise fully cloned humans, what is to prevent a black market to develop for their organs? A weird thought, I know.
So, I don’t like it not for the conventional reasons that it is humans messing with nature. We are a part of nature and what we do is not separate any more than any other animal that consumes its environment. (But we can overdo it, and must be careful.) And, yes, I will eat genetically altered fruit, and probably already do. But the possible uses for fully cloned humans crosses an ethical line.
Gary: that is one of the many possibilities you get into if you assume a designer. That we really aren’t part of the plan at all. DB said earlier, “What is proved by religion is a lack of imagination.” You are basically pointing that out. Think of all the possibilities of what that designer could be and intend. Both the Jeudeo-Christian-Islamic view of a rewarding god and the new age spirituality of a benevolent source seems to never consider (i.e., closed minded) the endless possibilities of what kind of creator could exist. Let’s assume a creator. What evidence is there that he is benevolent at all?
I have actually heard of a theology called Maltheism which postulates that there is, indeed a God, but that He is intrinsically evil.
Personally, I don’t believe in all that new-age astrology type stuff, but then I’m a Gemini and we tend to be skeptical.
Ha! LOL! Yeah, I’m a Libra but can’t really decide on it.
I’m stunned that HAGDS believes in a creator. I never would have guessed. HAGDS, we have to play poker some time.
All I can say is if there is a god, it has a lot of explaining to do. Talk about an absentee slumlord.
Thanks, Gary. I am now a devout Misothesist. As of now I pledge to cease all my human sacrifices to this indifferent god.
Dave, regarding the nature of thoughts:
You didn’t answer JQP’s questions as to what constitutes thoughts. If you had answered I would have had a starting point for going to the next step per JQP’s suggestion.
Your assumption that there is no reason why thoughts can’t be measured leads me to speculate (since you didn’t define what thoughts were) that you believe that thoughts are the electrical impulses measured by the instruments. If this is so then your eyes must be thinking about a red ball every time you “see” a red ball. The impulses going from your eyes to your brain are the thoughts of your eyes. I wonder what my finger is thinking as I type these words? 🙂
Is there a difference between the impulses generated in your eyes (or anywhere else) and the ones in your brain? I would like to know about it if there is.
What is a thought and where does it come from?
Obviously for you a thought is an impulse and it comes from the Impulse land. 🙂 Can I get a ride to Dave’s Quantum Cafe if I take the #9 Impulse Bus at the next corner? 🙂
What are my “impulses” about the nature of “impulses”? 🙂
I impulse, no, I think that thoughts come from the same place where everything else in the universe comes from. From the same place where Jodee’s electricity comes from. The same place where Dave’s quanta comes from. The virtual vacuum.
I’m not going to attempt to explain what that means. You already know my reasons. But if you can spare a few hours and watch the movies and read the link info, you would know where I’m coming from. I think we are a lot more than impulse generating and processing organic machines. The nervous system is like a circuit that can convert the radiant energy from the vacuum to electromagnetic form detectable by our instruments.
What are the implications? You can make your own conclusions.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2858148671911962750
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/index.html
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/index.html
Out of time again. I seriously need to retire soon 🙂
HAGDS, sarcasm escapes you, doesn’t it?
I’m with JQP as far as a creator is concerned.
Especially one with any human characteristics.
Yes, it’s anthropomorphism, Zer0. But I challenge any believer to explain to me why a source of *pure* benevolence and love would create such a violent nature in its creatures (and I’m not talking about humans). It’s like creating children who you teach eat each other in the most brutal way because you’re so full of love. (??) I believe this Pollyannish view to be strictly anthropomorphic.
Let me restate my challenge in Dyer’s terms. In one of his telecasts he challenges us to find beauty in anything. First he uses Viktor Frankle’s confinement as example. The one where he sees beauty with fish heads floating in a soup bowl. Then Dyer, thinking he’s giving the audience a real challenge because of the way he nods his head, says find the beauty in a “homeless man urinating on the street.” Well, since we believe the man to be victim that’s hardly a challenge. Of course we feel sorry for him.
But here’s my challenge to Dyer’s believers: watch nature as “god” created it and show me the beauty in it; when a pack of lions shred a water buffalo as it lives on, or when silverback gorillas gang rape their females and stomp on their lifeless bodies afterwards. (Which occurs in the wild and is well documented.) Or, for real beauty, watch the female preying mantis eat its mate afterwards. Show me the beauty in those things.
Is this the work of a loving source that only creates and never destroys?
No, it’s just another way that you avoid what you don’t like so you don’t have to cope with it. Isn’t coping with things as they really are more healthy than inventing fantasies?
“Sir,” said HavAGr8Day, “because you are walking through our garden and stomping on our produce.
I didn’t want to make you feel sad by saying it to your face. You seem so sad as it is (and you never know what another is going through).
HavAGr8day continued ;)…
I might say ‘Sir, isn’t a lovely day – and perhaps could you walk ANOTHER WAY so that you don’t in fact smash our produce?’ and you might do just that; head off down Kanan – to where it crosses the 101 freeway – and jump off the bridge. Sad people have been known to do that. (Before they take their blinders off).”
And the pale man crumpled down in the garden and cried. It had been so long since he had experienced compassion, so long since he had since he had even cracked open the door to the prison he had constructed for himself.
“I’m so sorry for walking all over your vegetables,” he sobbed. “Will you have enough to eat?” And HavAGr8Day plunked down next to him, and said, “no worries, not only do we have other gardens, but the earth is always offering up more.”
Than she said to The Man, (whose cheeks were growing a bit rosy), “besides, what Nancy doesn’t know, is that when I’m off on my journeys, many of my friends join me too – and they have many gardens also. Of all sorts. And so, there is ALWAYS more than enough.”
The Man dried his eyes on his arm, and looked at the girl – as if really seeing another living thing for the very first time. “You know,” he said, “I’ve grown bitter with age. It CAN happen that way you see.”
HavAGr8Day patted his shoulder. And The Man didn’t recoil, because it was the first time he had felt comfortable in his own skin in such a long while…….
And then the man began babbling, something about a dryer on some island, and, and, and… well, it was all a bit discombobulated sounding to HavAGr8Day. And so she just listened until she thought he felt better.
“You know,” she said, “I don’t seem to know as much dryers as you do, but perhaps you shouldn’t worry about it so much. Not everything is meant for everybody, at least, that’s what I think.
Most of the best things that have come into my life,” she continued, “have come most effortlessly.”
Secretly, HavAGr8day was continuing to talk to him because the great outdoors itself was in some way helping him breathe better. His eyes WERE beginning to sparkle…
“Well,” said HavaGr8Day, (as she thought to herself, “WHO IS NANCY?”),”Nancy,” will be needing me home soon (according to the story I just read), thus, I will need to head home so she does not worry. (For there are some things in this great wide world to be concerned about.”
The rosy cheeked, bright eyed man nodded (who, for some reason, looked almost a decade younger). He’d taken off his jacket and hat (which was just way too hot for the southern sun – and he was just hiding beneath it anyway) – and was sort of stretching himself out.
“I’ll not walk on your garden anymore,” he said, smiling. HavAGr8Day smiled back at him: “You know, that’s the garden we most often share anyway. If you’d ever like to stop by and eat something, tend something, grow something – you are always welcome. AND – there are a lot of other people that you will meet here too. But they will leave you alone if you like as well.”
Deep down The Man was kind, and he didn’t want to keep the girl from the many other things she needed to do. And so, he told her to “Have a great day,” and she said “Thank you,” (and meant it).
And then they both headed off…
NEVER TO SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN. 🙂 🙂 🙂
(Although, as she grew, HavAGr8day often hoped that The Man was still alive, and that his life had blossomed in many wonderful and unexpected ways. For, as with most people, he too had touched her heart.)
David Bacon,
thank you for providing this rest post a long the highway of life.
I will be SO interested in stopping by sometime when I pass through this way again (perhaps in several months, or several years…).
I ABSOLUTELY EXPECT to be delighted by all that you have discovered whilst delving into the cosmos.
I have Hana’s info (so, if Hana, or you, ever want to delete that, just wanted you to know…), and I think I know how to get in touch with Kate if that is meant to be :).
By the way: the above story ends with:
AND THEY ALL:
ACCEPTED WHAT IS,
AND LIVED; HAPPILY EACH DAY THEREAFTER.
Thanks Dr. David Bacon. Really 🙂
Look, Kate posted at exactly the same time I did.
I have a feeling we WILL come into each other’s lives sometime Kate…
Blessings to you Kate.
🙂
Dang, my last post until I swing this by this way again…
and it wasn’t golden.
Will try it again, a last post, until then… post needs that:
🙂 🙂 :).
Posted again at exactly the same time as Kate.
Love that. SO cute.
Until then ~
I just watched Dyer’s latest telecast. (Well, this time I got through more of it because I kept the barf bag close by.) I saw the pool anecdote Jodee talked about. She was exactly right and “Lord of the Flies” was a perfect comment. We all know that kids would create a perfect world if it wasn’t for those darn meddling adults. I’m sure everyone remembers the elementary school playground where the kids ruled without much intervention. Yes, we all remember how no one was picked on or harassed; or how sharing and inclusion was the standard of the day. And if there was someone different, no one dared singled them out or, gasp!, made fun of. Invariably, bullies would see the ineffectiveness of their aggression and all differences were worked out by the recess bell. Indeed, as we all know, children always play the glad game and find something positive in everything and everyone.
What planet is he from exactly?
It was not long before life at the Harrington homestead settled into something like order—though not exactly the order that Miss Polly had at first prescribed. HavAGr8Day sewed, practiced, read aloud, and studied cooking in the kitchen, it is true; but she did not give to any of these things quite so much time as had first been planned. She had more time, also, to “just live,†as she expressed it, for almost all of every afternoon from two until six o’clock was hers to do with as she liked—provided she did not “like†to do certain things already prohibited by Aunt Polly.
It is a question, perhaps, whether all this leisure time was given to the child as a relief to HavAGr8Day from work—or as a relief to Aunt Polly from HavAGr8Day. Certainly, as those first July days passed, Miss Polly found occasion many times to exclaim “What an extraordinary child!†and certainly the reading and sewing lessons found her at their conclusion each day somewhat dazed and wholly exhausted.
Nancy, in the kitchen, fared better. She was not dazed nor exhausted. Wednesdays and Saturdays came to be, indeed, red-letter days to her.
There were no children in the immediate neighborhood of the Harrington homestead for HavAGr8Day to play with. The house itself was on the outskirts of Kanan Road, and though there were other houses not far away, they did not chance to contain any boys or girls near HavAGr8Day’s age. This, however, did not seem to disturb HavAGr8Day in the least.
“Oh, no, I don’t mind it at all,†she explained to Nancy. “I’m happy just to walk around and see the streets and the houses and watch the people. I just love people. Don’t you, Nancy?â€
“Well, I can’t say I do—all of ’em,†retorted Nancy, tersely.
Almost every pleasant afternoon found HavAGr8Day begging for “an errand to run,†so that she might be off for a walk in one direction or another; and it was on these walks that frequently she met the Man. To herself HavAGr8Day always called him “the Man,†no matter if she met a dozen other men the same day.
The Man often wore a long black coat and a high silk hat—two things that the “just men†never wore. His face was clean shaved and rather pale, and his hair, showing below his hat, was somewhat gray. He walked erect, and rather rapidly, and he was always alone, which made HavAGr8Day vaguely sorry for him. Perhaps it was because of this that she one day spoke to him.
“How do you do, sir? Isn’t this a nice day?†she called cheerily, as she approached him.
The man threw a hurried glance about him, then stopped uncertainly.
“Did you speak—to me?†he asked in a sharp voice.
“Yes, sir,†beamed HavAGr8Day. “I say, it’s a nice day, isn’t it?â€
“Eh? Oh! Humph!†he grunted; and strode on again.
HavAGr8Day laughed. He was such a funny man, she thought.
The next day she saw him again.
“ ’Tisn’t quite so nice as yesterday, but it’s pretty nice,†she called out cheerfully.
“Eh? Oh! Humph!†grunted the man as before; and once again HavAGr8Day laughed happily.
When for the third time HavAGr8Day accosted him in much the same manner, the man stopped abruptly.
“See here, child, who are you, and why are you speaking to me every day?â€
JQP,
I have not seen the latest WD offering on PBS. The example you give about children in the playgorund is a valid one.
I often walk near a river by my home. There are times when I am watching the ducks, and how they interact. Some are quite vocal, some are bullies, some retreat, and others seem to take no notice of the fracas, and just – ignore it.
What distinqiushes us as humans, imo, is our ability to grow emotionally and intellectually.
We can outgrow/overcome our innate tendencies which seem often to lead into aggression (is that – just a male thing, btw 🙂
HaGd,
Yes I do have a career in music. I have been able to work with some very talented musicians. to me, music is a ‘universal’ language – it can capture the sounds of nature and of human experience within its compositions. The blending of voice and instrument is – a form of – magic :)It has the power to move people.
But I have also discovered, there is something to be experienced and appreciated
by
silence
🙂
love,
~ Kate
And may you someday learn the value of growing beyond an emotionally stunted ten year old. 😉
dear HaGd,
I hope you will not stay away long.
Life can blossom in unexpected ways, so true!
If you stay open to all the possibilities (and I think WD would agree on this – the world offers infinite discoveries),
the joy in this journey will never escape you.
with love,
~ Kate
Illustrated Wayne Dyer method for supervising small children around pools and dealing with life’s difficulties in general.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r317/Retromingent/Chimp-Poster.jpg
1. At first I thought HavAGr8Day was just kind of silly and fun. I’m sorry, but acting (even if it’s written expression) that much like a child in public is not a sign of happiness but of some serious issues. When she put out the invitation then retracted it with the “my attorney says†line, I thought this is not right. First, it was strange to put something like that out unless you really know the people, but then that striking reversal was bizarre. Most sensible people would have simply asked DB to retract it with no need to mention an attorney. Jodee’s observations about her were dead on. It was like having an uncontrollable kid screaming through the house and jumping on all the furniture.
Oh well, these are the minds that Dyer preys on the most. Shame on him.
2. I think Jodee said Dyer was divorced twice. I found that’s wrong. He’s now divorced three times! Marcelene is the latest to go. Normally, I don’t care about personal things like that. But most of his books give relationship advice and specifically how to make marriages work. That is what he does. Tells you how to get along with others. If he does all the things he says, how could he possibly not get along with his wife? Especially with 7 children. I never give advice on relationships, but I’ve been married just once and for 30 years. We never split, never talked about splitting, and we don’t even really argue. (And we’re both retired with an empty nest. Talk about seeing someone a lot.) Marriage is easy. I don’t get why people have problems with it. My only guess is some just don’t want to compromise and want things on their own terms. If you’re selfish, of course it’s not going to work. I couldn’t imagine a life without my wife. (My wife says Dyer is the most annoying individual she’s ever seen speak. That his constantly rolling hands make her nauseous.) Why would I take his advice on personal relationships? Why would anyone with his kind of track record?
Yes, DB, kindly delete my previous post. Thanks.
A comment on the story I posted earlier in complete italics. The point was completely missed because HavAGr8Day, who continued it for some strange reason. I put that up the with the possibility that as the “writer” she is, assuming she would have some remote knowledge of literary classics, she would recognize the names Aunt Polly and Nancy. That post was simply “Pollyanna,” written in 1913, changed to replace the protagonist’s name with HavAGr8Day. The point was the things Pollyanna says are startlingly similar to posts in here. Almost to a tee. That the sentiments are literally Pollyannaish.
I was wondering: is JQP really Dave Bacon?
I was wondering: is Dave Bacon really Wayne Dyer?
I was wondering: is Jodee really a demon?
I was wondering: Is HavAgr8Day real at all?
I was wondering: are all of you maybe the same person?
I was wondering: do they allow internet access in State Hospitals?
Haven’t seen your name in a while, Wu tzu. I think you just insulted Dave. No, I’m not him. Can’t prove it, so you’ll just have to take my word.
Kate: “We can outgrow/overcome our innate tendencies which seem often to lead into aggression…”
If they’re innate, aren’t they the ones closer to the source? Aren’t they the ones the source intended for us to use?
Hi JQP,
your last question
yes,
it appears so
BUT
(there always has to be one 😉
Interesting. So you think that the source possesses aggression and is not just of pure love and creativity, correct?
if you consider when a baby is born,
it is
defenseless
is this closer
to our ‘true’ nature
?
Well, I don’t think so because the state that enables survival and lives on are the qualities of adulthood. And it is structured that adulthood is the vast majority of life. The child state is temporary and not effective. But what I find interesting is that someone believing in what you just said would also consider that aggression is part of the source.
To be clear, I’m using the Dyer logic of children-are-close-to-the-source-state to show that it would also include aggression.
Basically, this new age view is love is natural and hate is learned. They claim, “I *know* what the source is and it is pure love. And hate is a human creation.” So many of my posts are attempts for those who believe this to explain how they know that when love has such a small footprint and why they do not think it is just a projection of not how things are but how they want them to be. But I don’t get any takers.
Well, John, you may recall my first post: “What, exactly, was the subject of debate again?”
Everyone seems to keep getting off track. This forum is a fascinating read when all keep to the academic discussion of Science, Philosophy and Theology (with or without Wayne ‘Snakeoil’ Dyer), no matter what their particular opinion. It keeps going astray when everyone gets so personal, sharing family history and private details about their lives. Who cares? Like Zer0 said, it’s almost like reading someone’s diary. The debate should focus on the points of the debate, wherever it may lead. Otherwise (for the lonely hearts) may I recommend ‘Myspace.com’.
Agreed. Sometimes, though, you have to go there because: 1) establishing credibility by experience, 2) anecdotes illustrate points, 3) hard questioning loses people and sometimes softening the discussion brings them back. So, I completely agree with you, but it just doesn’t work as rationally as one would like.
I hope Kate can find the time to respond to my last point with her on Dyer. I felt that was going somewhere.
John Q:
it seems to me that perhaps those were fairly close to HAGD’s intentions all a long, (as well as sharing what she seemed to sincerely believe were potentially helpful experiences that not all people have had the opportunity of having). So I’ll give you, John Q, a bit of credit (but not for your intentions):
From Wikipedia: Pollyanna tells the story of Pollyanna Whittier, a young girl who goes to live with her wealthy Aunt Polly after her father’s death. Pollyanna’s philosophy of life centers on what she calls “The Glad Game”: she always tries to find something to be glad about in every situation, and to always do without delay whatever she thinks is right. With this philosophy, and her own sunny personality, she brings so much gladness to her aunt’s dispirited New England town that she transforms it into a pleasant, healthy place to live.
Despite mixed perceptions of its literary merit, Pollyanna has proved to be both enduringly popular and, in unexpected ways, influential.
Through the success of the book, the term “pollyanna” (along with the adjective “pollyannaish” and the noun “Pollyannaism”) entered the language to describe someone who is cheerfully optimistic and who maintains a generous attitude toward the motives of other people. It then became by extension (and contrary to the spirit of the book) a derogatory term for a naïve optimist who always expects people to act decently, despite strong evidence to the contrary.
I must say, reading the portion you chose to post,
while throwing in geographical changes, did feel very disturbing.
Interesting to see that a man would feel that way too. (What motivated me to post this.)
Observation: I’ve read MUCH more about your personal and professional lives on this board than about anyone else’s (and your posts do seem very high in hostility and insults btw)
Perhaps if you addressed others with a more fair and kind approach, they would be more willing to give you the dialogue you seem so eager to have.
And perhaps if the posts contained less personal attack, (ie; comparing a poster’s farming lifestyle disparingly to that of your own), as opposed to simply containing less PERSON, there would be a greater chance for an illuminating exchange of ideas and conversation.
Please don’t take it as an insult if you do not receive a reply back from me. I read most of these posts in one evening – quite enough for me.
And, as a visitor on holiday, I know my host and hostess would rather I spend my time with them.
JohnQ:
You’re not fooling anybody. I think you need to drop “Public” from your posting name as you certainly don’t represent any healthy person I have ever known.
Your lengthy story written about the individual posting as HAGD was not only creepy but down right bizarre – and possibly obsessive. Some of your other posts reveal similar tendencies.
Take a good look in the mirror. Buddy, you are not currently doing yourself or this site any favors.
JohnQ:
You’re not fooling anybody. I think you need to drop “Public” from your posting name as you certainly don’t represent any healthy person I have ever known.
Your lengthy story written about the individual posting as HAGD was not only creepy but down right bizarre – and possibly obsessive. Some of your other posts reveal similar tendencies.
Take a good look in the mirror. Buddy, you are not currently doing yourself or this site any favors.
Like I said, I didn’t write the story. It’s Pollyanna with her name put it. That was all. It’s not my story. Her writing had exactly the same sentiments and the parallels were amusing.
Doing myself a favor? Doesn’t make sense, but I’ll bite. What do you mean?
And in what way am I attempting to fool anyone?
So, do you think it was right for HAGD to make this her personal teenage diary?
Oh, Okay. And why do you care?
I was wondering: is Dave Bacon really Wayne Dyer?
Well you can check this by asking Wayne Dyer to explain one of my papers : http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?page_id=912
🙂
Ha. LOL. Good one, Dave.
P.S. I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.
By the way, I need to clarify something. I in no way disparaged Jodee and/or farming. That was a complete misread. I was poking fun at the comments about the economy collapsing, standing in food lines and that we are consumer-wage slaves.
Speaking of Jodee, I notice you haven’t come back to take up my electricity challenge. In my opinion, if you want to figure out the (non-supernatural) underpinnings of the Universe, electricity is not the way to go. It is just a superficial atomic level consequence of its structure. You need to go far beyond this, beyond even the subatomic, past the quarks, gluons, muons, etc. The secret lies in the natures of time and light.
I would enjoy a Jodee response to that, as well.
JQP, looks like we are back where we we were before you suddenly disappeared. Even I with my bad memory remember the ugly state of the blog scene back then.
I would like to give you an advice. For the sake of keeping the discussion off the personal level why don’t you just skip over the posts that are off of the more important subjects. You don’t have to answer each and every post. Be more selective in picking the posts to reply to. If you think that you are somehow protecting the rest of us from the “propaganda” from HAG8D or others, then you are treating us as children. I think most of us are wise enough to give the proper importance to those posts. I indicated to HAG8D what I felt about her posts as diplomatically as I could. If she “did not get it” and chose to continue the same, then I will just skip over her posts and will not honer them with a reply.
By starting and keeping the static going you are not doing anyone a favor. You are actually distracting from the more interesting discussions that can develop if we let it.
I am treating the above as a constructive criticism, and I hope you do the same. 🙂
I think you have something important to say. I don’t want to start skipping over your posts in the future. 🙂
I understand. I didn’t think I was protecting anyone, I was speaking purely for me. And since she said she wasn’t checking this site anymore, I felt liberated to say what I wanted. But if I can get her to go to MySpace, as Wu tzu suggested, then I feel I have made a contribution however small.
But I will certainly take your advice.
Mr. Bacon has certainly spent a considerable amount of time and energy, perhaps spiritual, trying to make a point. Not sure what it is, but the energy spent might have been best directed at “ego”. “Change is the result of TRUE learning…”
-Buscaglia-
Some learn at a faster pace than others. Peace be with you.
Gary, have you checked out the links that I posted back on 10/12/07.
If you have a chance check this one out. I think it goes into covering the nature of the universe, and were things come from.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243
I would like to get your opinion on this perspective on the universe.
JQP, Jodeee, Dave and anyone else is welcome to share their thoughts on this. I think it’s an interesting subject to go into.
Actually that video is mostly related to the energy extraction. I should have referenced the one below.
This one has more meat regarding the vacuum potential.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4242030440208468502
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Related news:
“Two years after challenging a selection of religious fundamentalists to justify their beliefs in Channel 4’s The Root of All Evil,Richard Dawkins – “Darwin’s rottweiler†– is growling again. This time, in The Enemies of Reason, he takes on the wider penumbra of the paranormal, New Age mystical mumbo-jumbo, and the often expensive spiritual services that bring succour to the sucker.
His targets include astrologers, psychics, dowsers, homoeopaths and a woman called Elisis Livingstone who claims that in our Atlantean past we all had 12 strands of DNA rather than two. If the thought of being ten strands short bothers you, Livingstone claims she can restore them.
What makes Oxford University’s Professor of the Public Understanding of Science different from most sceptics, rationalists and humanists is that he won’t let this stuff lie. If someone claims that they can “channel†the spirits of the dead or alleviate the symptoms of some horrible incurable disease by pointing beams of coloured light at your chakras, Dawkins does not want to dismiss it as harmless fun. He wants to know how they claim to do it and what hard evidence they can produce to show that the effects they say they produce actually occur. This may seem like taking a steamhammer to smash a peanut, and Dawkins is aware that some people see him as a kill-joy, but for him the fun is not harmless. “We live in dangerous times,†he says at the start of the first show, by which he means not just the threat from, say, Islamic fundamentalism, but a more general flight from reason and the scientific method. Speaking at his office in Oxford, he says that the decline in interest in the physical sciences in schools is tragic. “The lack of scientific education means that people are not armed, not equipped to see through irrationality.â€
— I could not agree more.
One more excerpt from that article:
“The fact that homoeopathic remedies are claimed to work despite containing not a single molecule of the supposed active ingredient. (Dawkins points out that it is statistically almost certain that at least one molecule of every glass of water we drink will have passed through Oliver Cromwell’s bladder.)”
Gdavid: “Change is the result of TRUE learning…â€
Yes it is. But the ones that seem the least open to true change is the new age spiritualists. They will not open their minds when their charlatans are clearly exposed as frauds. They will not grow past the magical wishes they had as children despite the obvious. And, most of all, they tend to not only lack formal training but eschew it and deride it as narrow minded.
JQP, I agree with your assessment regarding the new age spiritualists. I think the same applies to many other groups in both camps: materialist and spiritualist.
The problem that I have with Gdavid’s statement is the part about “TRUE learning”.
How do you know if it is TURE? What may seem true today may turn out false tomorrow. What may seem true to you may appear false to me.
By capitalizing the letters in the word TRUE I am assuming that he is implying the existence of some absolute truth. So if we find it and learn it we will change for the better.
Another way that I interpret his statement is that there is a correct way of learning and if we learn it in this particular way then we will change and that change will be for the better.
In either case I think the statement is very weak and does not have a good support for it.
Zer0: The quote is actually from this individual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Buscaglia
Your logic, Zer0, tends to follow the philosophical epistemology path (how do we know what we know, or what is actually true). That’s a valid perspective, but historically it presented so many problems for philosophers that it prevented progress in their works. (That’s a very terse comment on a long history, but basically you can’t get far if you can’t agree that “red†does not exist independently of our senses or that truth is subjective to…anything.) Edmund Husserl, a major contributor to phenomenology, kind of freed up that philosophical log jam but allowing a first person point of view on philosophical examination. In my own words, what your consciousness interprets is valid and can be consider true. Therefore, here, truth can be objective and not subjective to time. In a way, you’re presenting truth as so subjective as to lose all meaning. That certainly is a valid branch of philosophy, but, again, you can’t go anywhere with it because it stops any discussion at square one. So, I think it’s fair to say the working definition here of “true learning” is that change is the measurement of learning. (The more one changes their position, the more learned they are.) I’m pretty sure that is what Buscaglia meant and Gdavid is driving at. This typically means the willingness to drop whatever preconceptions or collective baggage you have about a given subject to the point of completely overthrowing your most fundamental world view. That is the typical view anyone who is saying, “come over to my belief system” to someone who is far and away from their belief system.
The problem with his statement is that movement from one belief system to another is hardly a measurement of “learnedness.” Change does not inherently mean advancement. So, it’s a poor yardstick. Any new ager will tell you that movement toward unconditional love is the better yardstick. But the problem with that is it is single dimensional, because I can advance my intellect without regard to my emotions.
What it really comes down to is what ever you personally value most is how you will measurement advancement in world view. That is the real subjective part.
Zer0, regarding your video. I saw it before. Unfortunately, I don’t have a strong enough background in physics to comment on perpetual motion. All I can is every physicist I’ve worked with over the years tells it violates basic laws.
I am very qualified to discuss computer science (mostly), history, and/or economics, but not physics.
Wow. You people REALLY don’t get it. LOL
We’re sorry. Could you enlighten us?
Jodee…read the article on photons in Wikipedia. You may be right after all. My apologies.
Wow. You people REALLY don’t get it.
Kind of like you with antecedents?
1. “His interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is that the observer creates (manifests) the outcome. But that was not what Heisenberg meant and that is not how Plank, Bohrs, et al interpreted it. The problem is that spin and velocity cannot be measured at the same time. They’re mutually exclusive. That’s all. Therefore, when measuring for a wave you will get wave results because of the way you have to disturb the subject, not because that is what you expect or think of or believe in. And you will get particle results when tested another way.
The Copenhagen interpretation, which has been the official one for over sixties (sic) years, says quantum effects are because the observer disturbs the subject matter in order to test it and some things such as light are so small that there is no way to test it without disturbing it in an extreme way.â€
Comment by JohnQPublic — 8/15/2007
2. “I would absolutely love to hear his explanation of ultraviolet catastrophe in the blackbody radiation problem. There is a subtle, and basic, point in it I never could fully grasp: why does Planck’s constant for the quantum allow the radiation to curve off and avoid the catastrophe?â€
Comment by JohnQPublic — 8/21/2007
3. “I do have a question for Bacon regarding a statement above: ‘In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics.’
What about entanglement?â€
Comment by JohnQPublic — 9/8/2007
4. “I vote on the dihedral hidden subgroup problem.â€
Comment by JohnQPublic — 9/10/2007
5. “I am very qualified to discuss computer science(mostly), history, and/or economics, but not physics.â€
Comment by JohnQPublic — 10/16/2007
Very curious admission, JohnQPublic.
Wow. First, I said I don’t have a “strong” background in physics. I have a little. Second, the dihedral HSP problem is a math problem, not a physics problem.
But thanks for pointing that out.
Zer0, I’m trying to keep it non-personal but there’s so many mean people out there! Oh, and one more point for Max, the other comments you pulled are basic physics questions, which were a direct admission to only having some knowledge of the subject. But I guess you didn’t pick up on that.
I guess I forgot my little smiley face. No intention to be mean. I thought it was sort of a compliment. You seem fairly knowledgeable about the subject of Physics for someone unqualified to discuss it.
🙂 There you go.
Wow. I guess I got that one wrong. I didn’t catch that “curious admission” was a compliment. But thank you.
JQP, thanks for the clarification on GDavid’s statement. I understand your explanation and follow your logic. I do agree that for the sake of advancement some assumptions have to be made. But my issue with any assumptions are that after a while it is forgotten that those were just assumptions. Those assumptions become blinders and may hinder advancement in other directions or beyond a certain level.
Take for example what Bearden says about the current state of electrical power engineering. According to him they are 100 years behind of what quantum mechanics has shown about the nature of the universe and electricity. If this is so, then the assumptions that were made 100 years ago regarding the nature of electricity have become so encrusted that people no longer are able to see beyond them and advance. It has become a roadblock or a log jam. That is why we don’t have free electrical energy systems (maybe one of the reasons).
My point is that assumptions are fine as long as it is understood and not forgotten that they are only assumptions, and that they can be violated by other assumptions. Ultimately the thing that all the assumptions are made about will override any and all assumptions about it.
I prefer to assume that everything is subjective rather than objective. This works better for me and does not constrain my mind. But I’m not a fool. If I get a cut, it bleeds. I’ve learned to put things in proper perspective (most of the time). At least I hope so 🙂
Thanks for your post, it was very informative and well presented.
JQP,
Do you see my point about assumptions now?
You assumed one thing while Max meant something else.
Subjective vs. objective 🙂
But I guess it can be said that progress was made when the issue was clarified between you and Max 🙂
Max, based on your evaluation of JQP (going all the way back to 8/15/07) can I ASSUME that you have been with us all this time and preferred to read and not to write?
If so, why?
What do you think about the posts on this blog?
I know we have had some posters that had negative things to say about us.
I’m curious as to the size of our audience.
JQP,
Mantoman, and Max are definitely NOT me (Nor, as far as I am aware of, are they related to me.)
However, “What’s Your Point” WAS a loving houseguest – who, after discussing this over brunch last week-end, wanted to browse the site before she went to bed. I thought she would be just reading. Come to find out; she has a mind of her own ;). (I didn’t read any of this until tonight – because I wanted to get some work accomplished first.)
I do hope you guys accomplish and cover some good ground with your debate/conversation… from here on out.
(Zero, I always said: skip my posts if they don’t resonate with you. Sort of like life :).
Difference posts for different folks…)
Also, my take was always different than JQP’s and a few other hard line fact types. I actually think that if you re-read many of the posts from the last couple of months – you WILL see how energy, attraction and manifestation work – in all of the poster’s lives and dynamics. I just don’t think this is a subject you can debate theoretically. Rather, I believe it is one you must LIVE, to understand it. (And then discuss it.)
*****My REAL purpose in stopping by:
(Didn’t want her to be left wondering…)
I wanted to tell Hana:
Although it may be quite a while until I get in touch with you (just so that I can let some distance and fresh air blow through my professional life a bit – and some fresh air blow through this blog a bit too it appears ;)…
I will call you. So glad we met :). Think there was some synchronicity happening between the two of us as well :). And if you’ve moved by the time I call you… I have a feeling I’ll still be able to reach you ;).********
And if anyone ever wants to know if HavAgr8Day is real: if a hillarious commedian ever makes a movie out of a very funny week in his life – look for a last scene in a bank – it might just be a blond woman, (possibly me) playing myself :).
(Zero, point: amazing coinkidinks, synchronicity, and attraction DOES happen.)
Good luck to you all.
JQP, thanks for the classic Pollyanna reference. Still haven’t read it, but seems to me that character had a good handle on energy herself.
Now, for Zero’s sake, may this “static” resolve,
for my sake, may this energy connection dissolve, and may you continue your conversation without distraction…
But to Max and Mantoman, and anyone else who presents a different viewpoint – you go guys :).
OH, sorry,
the post still says “What’sYourPoint – my relative’s posting name.
I didn’t even realize it didn’t have my posting name until after sent mine.
Oh well, here to “What’sYourPoint,” a woman older than you JQP – with some real wisdom and a GOOD HEART.
(Changing the posting name back to mine now)
Hana: read the post about three above… 🙂
(And may all of our lives blossom in wonderful and unexpected ways…)
I understand your point about subjectivity. And I know you got mine, which was objectivity as a premise.
I can’t give the quality feedback on a physics hypothesis that you’re looking for. As for the institution of science being so “encrusted” as to no longer advance itself, I believe is bull. If this is true, then allow him to substantiate his hypothesis with true peer review. If no one credible substantiates it, then it’s just his word. Lots of people site Einstein as a loner with ideas opposed by the mainstream, but they seem to fail to know is that his first contribution with special relativity was important because Max Planck, a very mainstream classicist at the time, critiqued it along the way and gave it credibility. In fact, all of Einstein’s work was validated through peer review constantly. He did not create it in a vacuum, sort of speak, and then spoke out against the institution of science. So, the typical way he is portrayed as an outsider to mainstream science is not accurate. Same with the common Galileo argument. It was the church that opposed him, not his peers. So, there’s a big misunderstanding about the great contributors of science and just “outside” they were.
If what he claims is scientifically sound, then there will be peers in the mainstream who see it and will truly give it validation. If it’s him and no credible peers, well that’s not solid ground to start with. There are far, far more “outsiders” who were wrong than ever turned out to be right in the end. What keeps us from accepting the crazy guy on the downtown corner screaming the earth is coming to an end as valid scientific thought?
Regarding the details of his position, I can’t give you the input you’re looking for.
One other point, Zer0, (and I in no way am attempting to open this can of worms again) I believe that “mantoman,” “whatsYourPoint” and possibly “Max” are the specter of HAGD/Shhh again. “ManToMan?” What guy would choose that name unless it was Larry Craig? And the phony chest thumping is something I haven’t seen in a long time, unless Dick the Cheney made it stylish again.
Then “WhatsYourPoint” in one fell swoop reads 700+ messages and concludes exactly what HAGDS intended and defended her in detail. One of the signature traits in all these posters is how badly they interpret what is being said.
Now Max comes along and makes similar misunderstandings and, moreover, cares the most about what I said.
Again, I am not going there, but you asked Max if he was a forum lurker, and I believe his words have the earmarks of our teenage friend. But I could be wrong.
Zer0 – I have not been with you since the beginning. I just read something someone said about JohnQPublic being Dave Bacon and I got curious. Seems he has been here almost since the beginning, has contributed about 50% of the posts, has contributed about 80% of the posts relating to Quantum Physics, works with computers and then I read that Dr. Bacon’s focus is on Quantum computing. I was intrigued and decided to try and flush him out. No luck.
BTW, I am not a female.
To further answer your question, I have enjoyed reading all of this, though. Things got a little goofy when everybody started getting personal. The interchange seemed to go from simple argumentum to argumentum ad hominem. Hopefully you are all back on track.
Well, all the good “amazing and wonderful” adjectives were being sucked out the air not leaving enough for the rest of the class. Why can’t amazing be what is truly exceptional? If everything is amazing, then nothing is amazing.
Does DB == me?
Ask yourself: doing the kind of time intensive research DB does, would he have that much free time on his hands for ridiculous idle chit-chat? And would he ask himself lame questions and then answer them? Is it being suggested that DB suffers from MPD?
The question is an insult to DB, the University of Washington, and institution of education.
“The soul of religion is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms.†ghandi
“…ridiculous idle chit-chat…”
Who insulted who?
Related news:
http://duplicitous46xyprimate.blogspot.com/2007/06/wayne-dyer.html
I like the line:
“… appearing like a great big egomaniacal bald adolescent with wrinkles.”
Sorry, Gary. …waggishly absurd blather.
But fun.
““The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.†– Wayne Dyer
1. The irony is obvious.
2. Isn’t that a judgemental statement? Isn’t that supposed to be low-minded?
3. If I reject something I know a lot about, is that the highest form of knowledge?
4. Is is also implying that scientists cannot understand the principles of religion?
_______________________________________________
“When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Didn’t he just define himself in the first quote?
________________________________________________
“Conflict cannot survive without your participation.†– Wayne Dyer
1. Yes it can. How does he explain nature? (I forget. There is no conflict in nature.)
________________________________________________
“There is no way to prosperity, prosperity is the way.†– Wayne Dyer
1. So, the only way to get an abundance of food, is to already have an abundance of food.
2. There is no way to a better job, house, and lifestyle, because the way there is to already have a better job, house and lifestyle.
3. It takes money to make money. (He proved that one true.)
_______________________________________________
“Everything you are against weakens you. Everything you are for empowers you.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Then do not take a stand against our attack of Iraq or racism because it will weaken you.
________________________________________________
“A mind at peace, a mind centered and not focused on harming others, is stronger than any physical force in the universe.” – Wayne Dyer
1. How so? How is “stronger” measured?
________________________________________________
“Successful people make money. It’s not that people who make money become successful, but that successful people attract money. They bring success to what they do.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Paris Hilton was successful before attracting money?
_______________________________________________
“Everything is perfect in the universe — even your desire to improve it.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Including war, slavery, bubonic plague, discrimination, lynchings, hunger, famine, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, airplane crashes, strokes, paralysis, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, and so on. It’s all good, folks!
And, while I’m at it, a personal comment on the “law of attraction,” since anecdotal observations are accepted as proof here (like “synchronicity”). I am living proof that the “law of attraction” is utter nonsense. The greatest windfalls in my life happen to be the things I spent the absolute least “energy” on. Luck happens, trust me.
“There is no way to prosperity, prosperity is the way.â€
I like this one because I can put anything I want in there. Suppose I don’t care about propserity, but I care about being faithful to some idea. “There is no way to faith, faith is the way.” Suppose I care about baseball, “This is no way to Yankee stadium, Yankee stadium is the way.” Or maybe I’m Dick Cheney and I enjoy war, “There is no way to war, war is the way.” Or maybe I really like Dr. Dyer, “There is no way to Dyer, Dyer is the way.”
Ha! True.
Dave, I thought I recognized the name in the very first post, Wim van Dam from UCSB. I have a good friend who used to talk about Wim. Do you know Brian Fox? He’s the original developer of the Bash shell and of the Emacs editor, and was Richard Stallman’s first hire at MIT.
today is my 61st birthday. the older i get, the more positive i become. that is to say the more positive i become that NO ONE has the answer to life, the universe and everything. not even dougls adams who came to the conclusion that the answer was ’42.’
Actually, it’s 42.7.
Your brain on new age thinking:
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r317/Retromingent/new_age_lady.jpg
Wow! Fun stuff. Yes, Zer0, I have thyme to sell, but I don’t think it will help you with your scheduling challenges any more than it’s helped me with mine. 🙂
I’ve started going to work with my husband 5 days a week (I love it! We work great together,) as the farm stuff is winding down. (Most small farmers have day jobs.) We’re working 10 – 12 hour days at the sign shop and now I have even less time for this blog, as fun as it’s been. I’ve grabbed a few minutes here to try to catch up, but realize it’s pointless for me at this juncture to even attempt to contribute anything intelligent.
Gary, thanks for the Wikipedia referral. I will take time to check that out.
JQP, I love your Dyer quotes and analysis. On those, I believe we see eye to eye. They are both impecably logical and amuzing. I’ve cut and pasted them for future reference, as I’m sure that between my husband and brother-in-law, the subject is bound to come up eventually and you’ve added eloquently to my arsenal of questions that answer themselves. (Assuming the questionee is capable of logical thought, which both of these guys are – at least eventually. 🙂 )
So, I’ll leave you all with this: “Some people see things that are and ask why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t time for all of that….” (George Carlin)
“Thanks guys. It’s been real.” 🙂
Wow, great discussion. Zer0, I have thyme to sell, but I don’t think it will help you with your scheduling challenges anymore than it’s helped me with mine. (I do take cash, however. 🙂 I’ve started going to work with my husband 5 days a week at the sign shop (I love it! We work really well together;) now that the farm stuff is winding down and we’re putting in 10-12 hour days. (Most small farmers have day jobs, too.) But, I thought I’d “pop in”, (as HavAG8D would say,) on my break and take advantage of the NOT dial-up internet to catch up. However even at that, I realize that it would pointless at this time to try to contribute anything intelligent to the conversation. You all appear to be doing a pretty good job for the most part, so time constraints being what they are, I will have to be “popping out.”
Gary- thanks for the Wikipedia reference. I definitely will take time to check that out.
JQP – I love your Dyer quotes and accompanying analysis. Between my husband and brother-in-law, the subject is bound to come up sooner or later, so I’ve cut and pasted them and added them to my ever-growing arsenal of questions that answer themselves – assuming the questionee is capable of logical thought.(Which I think they both are, at least eventually. 🙂 )
Zer0 – keep spending ever minute you can with your little girl. She needs to be the apple of your eye. It will do wonders for her confidence later. You will never regret the time you spend with her. She’s way more important to you than any of us anyway. 🙂
So, here’s my parting “shot”: “Some people see things that are and ask why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all of that…” (George Carlin)
Thanks, guys. It’s been real. (Whatever “real” is…:-) )
Ahhh Geez! Another double post. Thought I lost the first one. I actually re-wrote the whole from memory. There goes a perfectly good break. Guess things aren’t all that much better here than with dial-up at home. See? Told you I didn’t have anything intelligent to add to the conversation! 🙂
A clip from HavAgr8Day’s barbecue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsjb1hKs2Zs
Jodee, it was a pleasure. I have a weakness for good insults, and you can dish it out with the best of them. I like it. Best of luck.
i believe that until you are mature enough and ready, you will not appreciate listening to dr. dyer nor will be interested. But until then attacking at dyer with words made up sounding similar with what a 10 year old would say is just a normal response. Im not trying to make fun of you jqp, i do like to see a different viewpoint every once in a while but it would be nice if they were just a bit more logical.
Your ar reel stoopid, jqp, and mabe sume days yu will understnad Wain Dryer. Rite now u ar to dum.
If being mature means listening to dr. dryer, count me as eternally a ten year old. And yes, that is an immature response. Tallyho!
I’m stunned! I would never had suspected that Metallica would have a strong following in the Appalachians.
A positive outlook is healthy–when it is based on realism. A realistic self-image, a realistic assessment of circumstances, a realistic approach to problems, and a realistic view of the future are the components of a healthy life. A positive outlook based on self-delusion is not helpful in any way to solving life’s problems. Seeing problems realistically is the only way they’re actually solved. It won’t help you in retirement to believe you’re successful with loads of cash when you’re not; or that you will receive prosperity by thinking about it a lot because of the so-called “law of attraction.†Or that the universe cares for you personally (but obviously doesn’t give a damn about that fly you swatted) and it would never leave you destitute; that you can forever be a child coddled by the loving universe; that belief alone is enough to make anything real. How is that healthy thinking as opposed to tackling problems with clear minded pursuit?
In fact, this type of fantasy “positivism†is self-impeding. A life built on fantasy and the rationalizing of every difficulty that we’re faced with, is largely filled with empty promises. On the other hand, you cannot go wrong with realizing that the universe is indifferent to you and of no help; that you are responsible for yourself and that the more you accept that you’re an adult, and not an adult-child, the better off you will be. If you stay with new age child-like experience, then you are not growing, which is what new age living is supposed to be all about. If prayer and asking the universe will bring you all the abundance you need, then why struggle at work everyday? There are plenty of examples of Christian Scientists who pray rather than seek a doctor and have let their loved ones die as a result. Ask yourself: are those who practice new age methods, as a group, more prosperous (or benefit more in any way?) than those who don’t? And are the homeless just the universe’s neglected? Why aren’t they benefiting from the loving universe?
New age thinking is not necessary in order to be prosperous, or to obtain abundance, or even to be a helpful citizen. All these things are obtained regularly by millions who simply take action. Everything that Dyer promises can and has been obtained without resorting to any of the silly notions he puts forth. I can guarantee you that you can toss all new age thinking aside and prosper just fine without it, but that you cannot so the same without a sense of realism towards life’s problems. New age thinking is just old age superstition.
If you believe in new age “laws†such as the law of attraction, then show me how to distinguish its validity vs. any ancient belief such as throwing salt over one’s shoulder. There are many who find prosperity in things they happen to be giving the least attention to. If humans have freewill, then coincidence must exist.
JQP
Glad to see you keeping your cool and not sinking to their level.
Agree with your response.
I’ve been really busy at work lately. But I try to check up on the blog as much as I can.
Sorry to see Jodee go, hope she’ll be back when the time is right.
I’m following the “free energy” quest though. Bought a kit of Bedini’s SSG Energizer. My brother is going to put it together. We will experiment with it and see if the claims are valid.
I try to practice what I preach. I’ll try to prove to myself if something works or not rather than relying on others’ opinions.
I’ll report the results when available.
Take care, keep your cool, and keep an open mind.
I’ll post whenever I have a chance or something worthwhile to say. But I’ll be watching…. 🙂
Hi John,
this caught my eye:
“If humans have freewill, then coincidence must exist.”
Can you elaborate on this?
thanks!
~ Kate
Sure, Kate. Since freewill means you can choose to do anything without predetermination, it follows that the sum of human events are random (i.e., not predetermined) and, thus, will undoubtedly create accidental confluences of situations. This is why some find prosperity in what occupies a significant part their lives, and others who do not–those who spend a lifetime unsuccessfully as artists or musicians, for example. (Watch the first month or so of “American Idol” to witness loads of people who believe to their very depths they have talent and will find prosperity in it, who give their goal practically all of their attention, but will never find prosperity in it because no one can stand to listen to them, much less pay to do so–which is exercised freewill on the part of the buying market. And yet others hit the pick-six at the races, win the lottery, of find a lucrative career in a profession they gave little attention to. These are the sums of individual freely decided human actions.
The so-called law of attraction implies you are somehow (supernaturally?) predetermining the actions of others to do something in your self-interest. If that were true, then humans do not have freewill.
Well said.
Questions for mr John Q Public if you would be so kind. I would just like to confirm with myself whether you are repub or democrat, also what religion are you if any, also what do you do for a living, and also could i know what your definition of freewill is? Thank you!
Actually, I’ve had to answer those questions before in this forum, so they’re scattered about. But for your convenience: I just turned 59, I’m retired but was a computer scientist for IBM and Bell Labs for thirty years, published a number of computer books, am a registered democrat with a conservative view on economics, and a devout atheist. (Perhaps the best way I could categorize my worldview is secular humanist.) I have three degrees (History, CS, and Econ) from SDSU and UCLA.
I am now a pathetic bored old man who still writes a lot of computer code wastes time on pointless arguments.
Metallicajoe, this perfectly reflects my worldview:
Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
JQP –
This pisses me off i typed a crap load of stuff and it all got deleted so now i have to type it all again damn but anyways thank you for your info it clears up alot and also i have listened just about all of wayne dyers audio tapes which is hours and hours long but there is one called manifest your destiny im not sure if you are famliar with it but at the end about the last half hour or so he speaks of a way to communicate with god and basically it is 2 20 minute meditations everyday one in the morning and one in the evening. the one in the morning consists of repeating the sound of ahhhhhhhhhhhh and imagining a flow of energy coming from your pelvis and moving out your third eye. the one at night is the same but you use the sound of ommmm. Now i know you are going to say that he is using ancient methods to profit – Lets not start that argument shall we? But anyways i know that you are a person who needs proof which i highly respect so here it is. Wayne says that one should try it for 90 days and to me it sounds as it would take a very well disciplined person to go through with this and you sound like a person who can achieve this if willing. It probably couldnt hurt. I hope you atleast consider this. please write back going to bed goodnight love yall
But proof means clinical, not anecdotal. I am familiar with his Manifest book. The problem with the proposition is it is the heads I win, tails you lose logic, so its success cannot be measured. If I don’t get what I attempt to “manifest,” then supposedly the universe thinks I don’t need it or that it’s not its time. How can I possibly tell if it works or not?
I expect that one argument back is that clinical trials cannot prove everything. Agreed! So, in the same vein you asked that the discussion not go to “ancient methods,” I would like it to be precisely understood what many on the side of science are saying regarding this point. Yes, scientific methods cannot prove everything, but they never attempt to take speculation as truth. A perfect example is the reply I received from David Bacon on entanglement. He said it cannot be explained in a classical sense, and that rather than make something up it is accepted as not understood in the sense of our macro world. That is the heart of this point.
The problem with Dyer, Chopra and other espousing new age philosophy is that they speculate in the gaps that science cannot not answer and then sell it as truth. That is in no way moral.
There are many, many questions I will never know the answer to. But I will not take speculation as a substitute.
A question: why is it important to know if you have a higher purpose and if you can create things through meditation? Why is it not enough to simply define your own purpose and carry it through with action, rather bellowing vowel sounds for hours on end?
JQP,
popped in :), and was delightfully surprised.
Only scanned the last several of your posts – but they appear to be thoughtful, and responsible-ISH.
Don’t have the time to join in the conversation, AND potentially derail it…
however, I do think if you continue in this vein that you’re going to stimulate a much more interesting conversation. And who knows where that can lead? (Especially if you find someone similar but different, with some time on his/her hands!)
And, if ya’ revert back to the fun in the mud sort of thang, I’ve got some fluffy towels to toss your way :).
XOX,
Pollyanna
(who is still too busy to read the 1913’s classic)
And for when I get a chance to pop back in next, would love to read your response (if you have the time) to your question:
“Why is it not enough to simply define your own purpose and carry it through with action…”
JQP, how have you defined your (life’s) purpose?
I’ve defined my life’s purpose several times – only to have life/external circumstances – ask me to step up to the plate of an even larger purpose than I myself ever imagined. (And we know I have a good imagination 😉
Glad you’re safe from the fires JQP.
Ta Ta 🙂
JQP, 59 is NOT old. Especially in retired, lil ole pet ROCK years. 🙂
I like MetallicaJoe…
Now, g’night Gary. REALLY.
PS No more snoopin’ round my barbecues there J…
“Why the hell would I want to take up something as pointless as “your challenge?†Why don’t you just ask me to rub bottles and make wishes for 90 days? Magic fairies don’t exist. Grow up.”
Sounds like fear to me, but what do I know, I’m already fast asleep…….
REALLY 🙂
JQP, how have you defined your (life’s) purpose?
Yes, to revive the Pet Rock. Dyer’s market is a perfect target to start with.
JQP, LOL, i dont even know where to start with you. Question do you read my posts through or just read every other word? LOL j/k But seriously what is your definition of freewill?
Why do you question our importance to know if we have a higher purpose and if we can create things trough meditation? Come on now John i hope you havent already forgotten about your world view reflections. Here let me try to jog your memory – Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. – Those are your words right? Im sorry my point being that if its possible to grow through meditation then damn it try it or try to understand it dont just try it once or twice and not get it so therefore throw the idea away as false and not have to “waste time” on attempting it or thinking about it. If you can show yourself that it works then why do you need proof? Can you prove that you are having a thought or thinking, or even what kind of thought that you are having? No, only to yourself. But YOU know that you are thinking.
So anyway what the hell mr proof guy? Does the 90 day challenge scare you? Does it sound like to much work? Im such a jerk. But seriously, if you did the meditations for 90 days and found out that communication with God is possible wouldn’t that be proof to you? Thank you love ya
Metallicajoe, I answered all your questions. The freewill definition was right in front of you: “Since freewill means you can choose to do anything without predetermination…”. I don’t know how to make it plainer.
Why the hell would I want to take up something as pointless as “your challenge?” Why don’t you just ask me to rub bottles and make wishes for 90 days? Magic fairies don’t exist. Grow up.
John – i know you probably already have a picture of what god should be like which is totally fucked. Sorry. It would make more sense that god is the energy of the whole which is everything put together and a consiousness that is all loving, and does not judge nor punish. Now if there was a chance that you could communicate with god and have proof of that within 90 days….. um what was your question, hmm oh yeah why would you want to do something like that? Oh yeah i forgot, being able to talk with god, woopdee doo why? what would be the importance if you cant prove it? right?
sorry jqp i didnt mean to make it sound like you believed in god i meant if god really did exist how would you picture him. sorry i know you are atheist
A proposition: why do you need to believe in a supernatural deity? What purpose does it serve you? Even if there is one? In order for one to be truly moral, the ownership of that decision must rest with the individual. If one acts morally out or fear, self-preservation, or because they want to comply with what they think is the law of the universe, then it’s not really morality, is it?
If a benevolent god, or “source,†is found tomorrow to exist beyond any doubt:
1.If you already behave ethically, then knowing this is a god changes nothing, does it?
2.If you do not already behave ethically, and if knowing there is a god changes your behavior, then is it truly moral and not just self-interest?
If the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view is right and a god of reward and punishment is found to exist:
1.If you already lead a moral life (regardless of any belief in god), then what do you have to worry about?
2.If this god turns out to be truly authoritarian and demands worship not just morality, then why would you ever worship such an immoral deity? To seek salvation?—which is just self-interest created from fear! Hardly moral. In this case, a god actually creates immorality.
The point: You do not need a supernatural being to lead an ethical life and its existence would not create a sufficient motivator to change because the reason for changing would not be based in morality but out of self-preservation. Thus, not only is nothing gained by believing in a god, but morality is diminished as a result.
Sounds like fear to me…
In what possible way could you interpret what I said as fear? Ridiculous. I guess Stanford-Binet were not your friends in school.
JQP,
I liked your post on your beliefs as a secular humanist. (And everyone’s dialogue.)
I actually didn’t stop by to tease you, nor to try to engage you. (To use Jodee’s phrase, I’ve decided I may not be a “good dog” for you after all :).
Et al:
I spent quite a few moments over the week-end after my last post; asking myself what this had really been about for me. The exact conversation
I had with myself went sort of like “What the heck????”
Yep.
Anyway, Sunday night, amidst the Santa Ana winds and the blowing smoke and ash, I connected some dots.
I had only ever seen Dyer’s INSPIRATION talk (once), knew that he had encouraged the woman who appeared on the show (the one who had survived the genocide) to write a book – and overall, thought the message in the program was extremely significant. (And then had read portions of his INSPIRATION book after it bopped into my life after finding this site.)
Although I initially stumbled here for an entirely different reason, when I finally got to the heart of what it had really been all about for me – it was about that (and my own creative writing that had been done years earlier that connected with the message in the INSPIRATION talk in virtually every way).
As usual, :P, I found myself getting out of bed at 4:00 am, with MY dots connected, and writing down something that finally felt complete and worthwhile.
I had wondered whether or not I’d want to link what I wrote to this board (still anonymously)… I felt the text wasn’t an appropriate match to post here – but yet, I thought some individuals, whether they had posted on, or simply read, this board, may be interested.
And so, I stopped by to see where things were.
I’d like to post a link sometime soon.
I don’t think there will be anything very controversial about it. (But you know, one can never know for sure.)
Until then,
back to my regularly scheduled life…
Oh JQP,
while I was writing my post, all your and MetallicaJoe’s posts popped up (I all unawares…).
I think MJ can pursue this one with you. 🙂
Have a great week-end!
“Thus, not only is nothing gained by believing in a god, but morality is diminished as a result.”
In the unlikely event you wanted a quick response from me: I can see where things get all confusing for people when they equate God with punishment and reward. If my spiritual underpinnings were placed there, I’d feel a bit on thin ice.
However, any experiences that I have had, that have transcended the norm and lifted my life to a higher place of growth and morality (but not the sort of morality that is based upon fear of punishment or reward) have been intertwined with an awareness and experience of Something More. I haven’t even sought it out. It’s simply been more the process.
It is funny though… in my work with a charity that supports individuals with severe disabilities – I haven’t come across an atheist volunteer yet (And we have hundreds of volunteers). And no one is allowed to prostletise (please don’t make me spell check that). Their volunteer efforts are focused more upon secular friendship and support.
However, maybe I’m not seeing the atheist volunteers, because they’re all helping to rebuild New Orleans (like you have done :).
It’s a good thing I do have to go to work.
Related news:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-my-fellow-atheists/
Excerpt:
“My point, with respect to the term “atheist†(or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause. There are many people in this country who do not believe in God and who understand that there is conflict between science and religion, but who do not feel the slightest inclination to join an atheist group or to label themselves in opposition to religion. These people are “atheists†by any measure, but you will never meet them at one of our conventions. They have read the writings of the “new atheists,†sent us letters and emails of support, are quite fond of criticizing religion whenever the opportunity arises, but they have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics. And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.”
I have a question for all. I will begin with a statement:
.
“Everything is as it should be.”
.
I have always found that a comforting thought. In fact, atheist, faithful or seeker, we can all find this a comforting thought. Here’s why:
If there is a God (as we conceive it), then everything is under control. His plan is unfolding, His will is done for me, for you, for all. We have nothing to fear for God is in charge and will help us on our way. Everything is as it should be.
If there is no God, then the Universe is unfolding as it must according to the laws of Nature and Physics. It changes, grows, evolves and becomes more complex as it does and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. So, whether willed or random, planned or meandering, everything is as it should be. Consider that.
.
Now, my question:
.
if everything is as it should be and, ultimately, we can change nothing but our own small lives (whether by free will or willed freedom), then why does it matter if there is or is not a God?
If there is, we can’t overrule God, now, can we? What will be will be. We have free will but can affect only our own soul’s fate. We can not alter God’s plan. If there isn’t God then we are no more than organic virtual particles that exist momentarily, spin left or right, are large or small, fast or slow, weak or strong, but eventually must disappear. So again, what is the difference between God or no God in our lives? It only becomes important in the “after” life. We survive, we succeed, we live or we do not.
Excellent questions, Gary. Thank you for contributing in an academic sense.
Since the folks in Dyer’s corner seem opposed or unwilling to engage in academic dialogue (consistently they steer the talk to anecdotes and first person and, thus, take me along with it occasionally.), I will take their position as devil’s advocate. (I have sufficiently read their material for too many years. But I read a lot of garbage for amusement. For example, every part of me hates Ann Coulter for so many reasons, but I read her books with an interest in how she constructs her arguments. In order to not contribute to her pocketbook, I check them out from the library.)
So, these are not my views but an attempt to engage this line of thought.
Suze Orman describes the conundrum of a guiding universe with freewill as you controlling one of a pair of wings, and the universe the other. Relating this to your point “if everything is as it should be and, ultimately, we can change nothing but our own small lives…”, the new age view is that freewill occurs on a small scale but collapses on a larger scale. (The next sentence is about to wipe out what little, if any, credibility I ever had with DB when I attempted to take up the baton to argue for rationalism.) It is likened to the moment when the wave collapses between the quantum world and the macro world. That is, new agers see the sum of freewill as contained and guided by a higher force, but not necessarily controlled.
So, breaking it down: “if everything is as it should be,” meaning the world is predetermined; “we can change nothing,” the rebuttal is we can make change but it is influenced not controlled; “then why does it matter if there is or is not a God?” Because the new age god is a connecting tissue in humanity, not a controlling force.
“we can’t overrule God, now, can we?” The new age view holds that we are not separate from God but all little elements that collectively make up God; but over the progress of history that a particular vision will be realized. So, in the new age view overruling God doesn’t make sense because you’re saying your overruling yourself.
In summary: your argument pits freewill against predetermination. New agers will argue the two work in cooperation. Basically, it’s not that the ultimate outcome of human history is predetermined by God, but that there is a collective humanity that is God and it is gently guiding humanity towards a vision.
That’s the best I can do. These words are making me ill now.
Things are getting interesting again 🙂
JQP, I agree with your post that starts “A proposition: why do you need to believe in a supernatural deity?”
I think that those who have a need are lacking the belief in themselves. They don’t know themselves and their own potential. For them it is the easier path to take, because it relieves them from responsibility of their own life. If something goes wrong then it was God’s will, not their own fault.
It’s like working for a company or being self employed. If the company fails then the employee can say that the leaders made bad decisions and it was not their fault, they couldn’t do anything about it. If a self employed fails it is because of their bad decisions so they can’t blame anyone else. Of course those who don’t want to take responsibility for their own life will look for other causes of their failure.
Although I don’t believe in God, I still think that we are more than biological machines. There is another layer of ourselves that we don’t fully understand or experience. I don’t know what to call it, soul, spirit, or whatever, but there is something non-physical under the physical shell that can’t be measured or experienced directly. But this doesn’t necessitate the need for a God.
If someone makes the argument that if there is a spirit there must be a God, then they would also have to believe that there is a real Mother Nature because of all the living things on this planet, and we have to believe and worship this Mother Nature.
The “supernatural” is no more than that yet to be understood, just as viral diseases were once thought to be the result of hexes and curses. If a name is needed, doesn’t ‘God’ work as good as any?
“The “supernatural†is no more than that yet to be understood…”
So, the presumption is that you know the supernatural exists, but others have not discovered it yet. To use your analogy, if this were pre-Louis Pasture right now you would be telling us that you already know bacteria exists but undiscovered.
You need to support that claim. How do you know this?
Wow. I am so excited. I can’t help myself.
Gary, you wrote a really sincere, wonderful post. I appreciated it! And JQP and MAX and Zero are all engaged in a really awesome discussion. Man, can you guys cut me a little slack and let me add a few thoughts? I mean, I thought I was back here to check things out and add a link… but…
“Everything is as it should be.”
I love that, and I believe it to be true.
(At this moment.)
I am going to try not to be too anecdotal – however, as I’ve never been one to “follow” someone else’s thoughts, my tendency has always been toward needing to EXPERIENCE things myself.
(Yes, I am a writer – who had a quote on her high school folder that read ‘Books are fine in their own way, but they are a mighty bloody substitute for life.”??)
Anyway, I also don’t always have time to test everything in a lab (nor do I believe everything can be tested in a lab) – thus, my need to reference things in anecdotal ways.
Religious doctrines, group definitions, being defined as part of a specific “spiritual community” – has never been a real option for me emotionally. Anything that EXCLUDES others, doesn’t work for me. (And, truthfully, that includes anything that excludes atheists.)
I don’t believe that anybody has to believe in God (although, I obviously like to nudge people in that direction, but nudges are different). Nor do I believe that anybody has to believe in a specific type of God. (And if you study most major religions, they will in fact say that ultimately, God is truly unknowable – far beyond what we humans can comprehend. Thus, the religious tenant to not create physical images of God.)
So if God is ultimately unknowable, then why even consider such spiritual questions?
(PLEASE don’t have high hopes of me comprehensively answering this question – even a little bit.)
In my observation, people often come to their beliefs in God through a variety of ways. Some because it is comfortable, and a family expectation. Some because they desire a higher power – something above and beyond their own decision making abilities – to guide them (I’m not saying this is a wrong reason). And then there is a third group – the one that I relate to the most.
Sometimes, at different times in life, sh*t happens ;). I mean, things happen that defy anything that our rational minds and inquiring hearts can find an answer for in any place other than the “wisdom literature.”
I didn’t always have the beliefs that I have now.
My belief in “something more” didn’t arise out of thinking about it. It came from experiences that essentially knocked my socks off.
I don’t want to get too much into the psychic realm, because I don’t believe that is a main point for this blog. But it’s hard to avoid completely.
There are so many charlatons out there. So many silly people claiming to do silly things to make a living or gain notoriety. And then there are other people – who simply have psychic experiences. (This is where I’d love for anyone interested on this blog to look into the subject more scientifically – it can and has been done, and continues to be.)
Anyway, I gave a fairly light example of a psychic experience involving email. However, there have been many other examples that are much more meaningful. And in these examples, the psychic experiences almost always propel me to learn, grow and assimilate life’s lessons much more quickly. It truly does feel as if I’m trying to be taught lessons. (And sometimes I just want to have a bath and eat cheesy popcorn 🙂
I referenced before about having a defined purpose for my life at several different times – and about life/life circumstances propelling me past that purpose. Or at least re-directing in a way that I view now as far preferable.
So how do we come to terms with psychic experiences that seem to be very … educational and instructive? That seem to create experiences that are so far out of normal frames of reference in regards to typical experiences of coincidence?
And that propel one’s life forward in ways that one sometimes can’t even believe?
I do believe in God. Mostly, because if I had to say what I believe is the bottom line purpose in my life – I would say it is growth (and trying to keep up with my growth lessons). And all of the experiences that I have had regarding not only psychic things, but also experiences in the realm of death and dying (with lovely human beings who have shared some of the most intimate phases of their lives with me) – all point in the same direction.
(When one works with people in the later stages of life, one often sees and witnesses things that are really unrecognized in most areas of society – but experiences that are available to anybody who wants to do the work for any length of time – or to do some reading.)
Anyway, I can’t over-simplify my beliefs. The reason my friend coined the phrase “over-analysis leads to paralysis” was because I can be WAY too analytical. (And extremely righty brained too. Go figure.)
But spiritually, it isn’t important to me to TRY to believe in God. I simply do, completely, at this point – as nothing else makes any SENSE.
I’ve had a friend since first grade who was always an atheist. I’d say she very much believed in JQP’s secular humanist points.
However, decades later (just recently), because of concrete experiences she has had – she no longer can believes that way. (Sort of like Jodee’s Christianity reversed – she feels she seen and witnessed things that are too concrete to view the world through that perspective anymore.)
I wish that everyone on this planet could have experienced just one specific experience that changed my life completely. And, pretty much, like dominoes, changed everyone’s life around me as well.
I hoped long ago on this blog that I might get around to sharing it (before I blew it so early with my way too ambiguous antlered buck story). However, it just seemed like it would sound like a magic trick – and in the end, be of no value.
Well. We are all different. Different tastes, needs, ways of understanding and experiencing the world.
For some reason, this thought comes to mind: if a person who is colorblind lacks trust, might they think that everybody around them is having fun at their expense? You know, a global conspiracy to make them think they see colors wrong? And do they really anyway? Or do they see them in their own way, as we do our’s?
Maybe we are not all supposed to have the same experiences in this life. Maybe our brains and souls are not wired for that.
At the same time, if one doesn’t have circumstances knocking them over the head and propelling them, almost against their own will, to believe in Something More – and if they have a desire to delve into the possibility (as one might delve into any possibility) – then maybe as MetallicaJoe mentioned, doing something like meditating may be a way to approach the subject, IF someone is interested. I’ve never meditated, but it certainly seems to be a tested method of accessing one’s inner wisdom…?
I do like “Everything is as it should be.”
(Btw, my link, when I do link it – has NOTHING to do with psychicness btw. Collective sigh 😉
“I am noticing a difference between male and female posts: about 17 paragraphs.”
Woah.
I’m going to go sit in the time out chair for a while now :).
“The “supernatural†is no more than that yet to be understood…â€
So, Max, what you are saying is that it is OK to believe and worship something that is not yet understood? Wouldn’t it make more sense to be skeptical of something that wasn’t understood?
What value is there in believing and worshiping without understanding?
I think you need to clarify your statement.
Like i said JQP your idea of what god would be like if he exists is FUCKED!!! God would be nothing like the jealous punishing tyrant that you picture it would be so of course believing in a bullshit angry punishing god just makes things more worse than not believing in god at all. So you keep trying to rip on god go ahead keep doing it because its very uninteresting i think we are all past the idea that believing in a angry violent god is not good. Again what im saying is i deeply believe that god is all loving, does not judge nor punish and is NOT a person nor is a gender – everything in the universe is made of energy and everything is connected in that way and i believe that this is what god is. And if there was a way that we could communicate with that consiousness then theres no question that we out to look into it. But you go ahead just sit there with your thumb in your ass and call it all bullshit so you never have to think about it again cuz we all now thats the more easier way to go, right?
Although sometimes the “insults” do fly on this site – I have to say, JQP finally showcased his sense of humor for me in his post after my last set of posts; something about “well, somebody else is sucking all the wonderful and extraordinary adjectives out of the air and leaving little for the rest of the class.”
MetallicaJoe, I’m just trying to tell you – don’t get TOO offended if you can help it.
Well, a consultant’s work is… often on saturdays! And so, once again – I am off.
(If I weren’t, I’d still be sitting in my time out chair :).
_________________________________
About the link I want to post – maybe today?
This week-end when I have a moment?
…It isn’t about convincing, or religion, or psychic experiences.
(Trying to transition back a bit to my original intent to potentially share that link; because when I finally connected those dots for myself, it was so helpful.)
me
O no. I’m still here.
I specifically avoided going further in my discussion regarding Mother Teresa, because I feel she is so far beyond me in her own growth, that I just don’t want to take a chance of profaning the sacred by putting my words in her mouth.
The same goes for God really.
I wanted to try to be somewhat clearer on my beliefs than in the past though… (Oh, where can somebody sell me some time??? There would never be enough time really to make my beliefs very clear, because they are still evolving really. And in that area, I just don’t consider myself the teacher or even a teacher. More a discusser of experience. Of the ‘something more.’) 🙂 eep.
Anyway, I agree with you JQP – I don’t believe that true morality can ever exist when there’s some sort of benefit/loss ratio equated with it.
Including one of acceptance or of being loved.
Not sure how you’re equating that with the above topics; but that’s probably because I am rushing too much now.
(Ooops, fell out of my chair 😉
Owww.
I guess the meditation and manifesting is doing you a lot of good, Metallicajoe. It obviously has created the calm, loving, centered, not to mention articulate, individual we see before us now.
I suggest you go blow some more energy out your third eye. (By the way, it’s “chakra.”)
i think we are all past the idea that believing in a angry violent god
Really? Then let me refer you to a post in this blog dated 3/4/2007:
“29Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver … 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
Sounds like a tyrant to me. In fact, your all-loving god notion is a minority view in the world. Perhaps your limited reading has not introduced you to Christianity yet.
Clarification: when I said that a belief in a god diminishes morality, I was specifically including the idea of an all loving god.
The idea came from this: it was cited many times in the wake of Mother Teresa’s revelation that she had questioned the existence of God, that her morality was strengthened by the fact that she carried on good works anyway. She was not doing it for God, she was doing it for herself. You see, if morality comes from your own decision and not because you think it is the “way” of an all-loving god, then it is truly moral. That was the point.
I’m going to elaborate on my last point even more: If you believe in any god, of any kind, then your reasons for being moral are suspect. Only the individual who acts morally but believes in no god can be fully trusted.
JQP –
You sarcasticly say that the meditations are doing me alot of good? I dont recall saying that i do the meditations .. oh yeah cuz i didnt. I love it when people assume stuff. And by the way christianity has nothing to do with an all loving god and neither do any of the organized religions. When i say all loving god i mean ALL LOVING GOD – you do know what that means right? Let me rephrase – I would like to hope that we would all agree that the angry punishing god we see in the bible and in other religion books could not exist simply cuz it makes no sense and probably the reason why you are not religious which is fine im not religious either but still believe in an all loving consiousness of all energy as a whole. Thank you.
My wife and I just got back from an evening of bar hopping in Santa Barbara (State street). (A luxury you get after your kids are grown.) So, I’m in no mood for academic anything. (I’m a happy drunk.) Best to all, and to all a good night!
Wow, this is PERFECT TIMING.
Might I even call it divine timing?? 🙂
Gosh that was a cute post above! JQP, a happy drunk (and perhaps his wife a bit tipsy too) – in a lovely area like Santa Barbara. Hurray!!!
*********************
Well, I’m going to try to post my link.
A few disclaimers:
I have never met anyone associated with this blog – EVER. Nobody knows me as a person, and I know nobody else as anything but blog posts.
I am not connected to anybody or anything related to this blog – beyond myself.
K?
So anything I write in my link has to do with me, only me. And that’s pretty much the whole kit n’ kaboodle.
(Wait, I’m still smiling over JQP being a happy drunk!!)
Anyway,
please also know –
to anyone who chooses to check out the link – this is simply me connecting my own dots in terms of what the heck I was doing here to begin with.
WARNING to the men: It uses the word BUTTERFLY quite frequently (!) and summarizes a manuscript that could either be made concrete (for a picture book for little ‘uns), or more abstract (as an all-ages type of thing). Thus, if you are looking to read something highly academic, or, more importantly – MANLY – do not, I repeat, DO NOT – follow this link.
However, you can always skim things the way that I do :). Then it’s never soooo bad.
Alrighty, to all those I’ve posted with, if you want to know my wishes for you (and you don’t mind
feminine writing) – then maybe give it a try.
I think there’s supposed to be a lot of other disqualifiers, (like, oh yes, it’s WORDY, and I didn’t do spell check on a couple of pages), but I can’t think of what they are at the moment, thus I will be daring.
However, not that daring.
I’m posting this, and then in the next, I’ll try to post the link (don’t want to lose all this explanation if it doesn’t work).
‘N to all a good night! (Or morning, as your schedule may have it)…
Oh yes…
if the link doesn’t work, you can always try going to Live Journal. My journal name is:
havagr8day. And the journal has only one entry, entitled: Dots.
I chose a “Plus” membership – which means you can have a free blog, but Live Journal places it’s own advertisements around it (completely unrelated to me – or you if you get a plus account too :))
Alrighty then, the link:
havagr8day – Dots
Hmmm. That doesn’t look like a link.
Well, that’s what the link says – except it’s a LINK, and it’s blue. If someone knows how to change that for me, feel free.
Otherwise, I’ll leave it up to the fates until a more simple answer drop into my lap :).
Very Best of Wishes.
me.
JQP,
I’m still just so happy.
What I wrote over at Live Journal (actually wrote it the 22nd of oct.) is what I really wanted to express.
I really do skim a lot of life – and try to release what I “judge” as not helpful, and embrace what I feel is true and helpful.
For me, regarding Dr. Wayne Dyer, and his writings, I could really only post on what I’ve seen (the couple things I’ve referenced). And I haven’t had, or been able to give, the time to researching all that I haven’t.
Thus, I would be your worst candidate for a debate :).
THANK YOU for giving the suggestion about how to post a link. It will make very happy when I can do it.
(Right now Live Journal is trying to correct itself – it says I haven’t posted an entry when I have {it’s underneath stuff that tells me how to post one 🙂 – so I’ll try to post that link
when the situation is corrected.)
Anyway, that link will hopefully summarize why I enjoyed my journey through all of this with all of you – and it does also give my feelings (including judgements) about the INSPIRATION tape.
But I think it’s MUCH more appropriate to post as a link – in every way.
Best wishes!
me 🙂
And maybe this is helpful in terms of my take on judgement?
When Mother Teresa was alive, I believe there was some controvercy regarding her accepting financial charitable assistance from individuals who did not appear to be very morally strong.
From what I recall, her (my interpretation from when she was alive and spoke for herself) take on the subject was that she would accept help for the people she was trying to help from almost anybody – essentially. Because to not accept it, would be to potentially harm or deprive those she was trying to assist (including, if I remember correctly, the very people who were struggling morally).
Did she judge actions? Well, in my observation, from watching her own stellar actions (in my humble opinion) – yes. But the way I always understood her writings was that she held herself accountable for what she knew (And in my opinion again, hardly ever gave herself credit for any of it). And allowed … God … to hold others accountable for what they did or did not know or understand.
Anyway, if ever there was a human being that lit up the planet for me – it was she. But see, that’s where I’m all anecdotal again. You all want to have an academic debate, and I just want to speak from my heart. 🙂
Thus, the link!
That’s where the happy ending is for me.
And I’m a sucker for happy endings.
🙂
http://havagr8day.livejournal.com/728.html
Well, even if that doesn’t work as a link, it should work if one feels like copying and pasting it in the URL thingy doo :). I tested it, and it worked for me.
(THANKS for that advice JQP!)
AND, if you choose to read it, and feel like I’m only addressing a small portion of what has been discussed here – I think that’s true.
For ME, (to slightly co-opt DB’s quote for a different purpose…) the drama (ie; discussion topics) on this forum were just toO big for ME to do any sort of justice; especially given the limited amount of time I had.
And I understand JQP’s desire to have a focused discussion and specifically debate points – all of which for me, and the way my brain and soul are wired, would take SEVERAL 🙂 (!) lifetimes.
(Joke about the lifetimes!! Just tryin’ to play. I mean, it could… but, just not sure if it’s an OPTION!!)
But like I said, I do understand it.
So here’s that link…
And cheers to all of you!
To insert a link, use a fully qualified URL. That is, copy/paste the whole URL from your browser including the “http://” part.
I have caught up on reading the posts. I am picking some low-hanging fruit to respond to, but that does not mean I missed your post. Actually, I’m still pondering a number of points others have made.
HAGDS, you said, â€I specifically avoided going further in my discussion regarding Mother Teresa, because I feel she is so far beyond me in her own growth, that I just don’t want to take a chance of profaning the sacred by putting my words in her mouth.â€
This means you do have a value system; and that you do make critical judgments. In Dyer’s latest about the Tao, he goes to great lengths to say he listens without judgment. In fact, you yourself said earlier in this blog, â€Mother Teresa said something to the effect of “I don’t judge, because during the time I am judgeing, I can’t be loving.â€.
But if you put Mother Teresa on a pedestal, you have a value system; you value some actions over others. Therefore, it follows that you judge some actions as low, as well. The idea of suspending critical judgment of others means to suppress an important component of our humanity. If you judge no one, then Hitler has equal footing with Mother Teresa.
Everyone has a value system. Therefore, everyone makes critical judgments of others. Dyer creates reams of critical commentary on conventional society, movies, anything with conflict including political debates and even stand-up comedians, and he out-and-out stereotypes and rails on authoritarianism in “How to Get What You Really, Really, Really Want.†In fact, if you study the evolution of his writing you can see only applies being non-judgment when it comes to his world views, but readily accepts criticism of things he disagrees with.
Being non-judgmental has horrific consequences.
A suggestion on debate structure. It is difficult to converse when statements are in first person and do not form claim, support, significance constructs. I’m not trying to be pedantic, but helpful.
When someone claims, “I think that God is all loving…”, the problem is the first person voice places the authority of the claim with the writer. It generally makes a stronger argument to place the claim with something other than the writer; like a logical argument, or a reference. Thus, “It is most likely that God is all loving…” (a claim), followed by the logic that supports your claim, gives the statement more authority because you are saying the evidence is in my argument, not just because I am saying it. Finally, the argument should state why your claim is significant.
Again, I’m not trying to be condescending, but just trying to pass on some experience I have gained in debate. It appears that few here have had debate training.
HAGDS, my suggestion about argument structure really has to do with expression of what’s in the heart, and less about true debate. (I’m suggestion stealing from the pages of debate technique.) If you have something to say, then isn’t a strong articulation, by definition, more of a reflection of what’s in your heart than not? That is, word choice and flow can paint your picture with either vivid colors or obscure opaqueness. When one strings together lots of adjectives, typically indicating the lack of a strong verb, they tend to lose the reader and, thus, what is in your heart does not come across as well as it could.
If one has something worth saying, isn’t it also worth saying it well? But it’s just a suggestion. This blog is not a debate forum, so it’s not important. But I think you could make a stronger connection with your readers.
JQP,
my only real hope in my posts were for them to be natural. Since I was posting anonymously, with real time constraints, I wanted my self expression to be pretty transparent.
– I wasn’t trying to have readers. I stumbled into this site. And INITIALLY it was sort of the opposite – I was struggling to preserve my time so that I could devote my time to the writing where I do actually have ‘readers.’
– This site turned out to be a bit more complex (truly) then I understood it to be at first glance.
– I juggle quite a bit, and this seemed to take on an unexpected life of it’s own.
Especially when Dyer’s INSPIRATION book was out of place, and just above my friend’s book at the store…
– But I felt very quickly, that whatever I thought I might be able to contribute to this forum – was not a very realistic goal.
– And no, I don’t necessarily agree that strong articulation is a better reflection of what’s in one’s heart.
I think it depends upon what’s in one’s heart.
And what’s in the heart of the person with whom you’re communicating.
*************
Well Mr. JQP, I definitely know in my heart that you and I have different paths to travel.
(Not that they can’t intersect from time to time however…)
But I know that I’m not meant to stay and debate Dyer’s writings. It isn’t my style.
I haven’t read or seen work of his that I have felt was irresponsible (however, my exposure has been somewhat limited). Also, from the very beginning, I commented on a blurb that he wrote – about experiencing ‘falls from grace,’ before he ‘synthesized material to a higher level.’ (loose quote.)
Thus, if I HAD read something that he had written (which I thought truly reckless), I honestly would have tried to talk to him about it – possibly in person/email/etc. Believe it or not, that would seem MUCH simpler, quicker, and more meaningful to me than discussing it here.
(But I’m NOT undermining your desire to do so. Differences are okay in my book.)
The bottom line is: I can’t get my mind around how I can address anything significant in here (responsibly) with the time that I have available.
However, I do still seem to want to be a little catalyst occasionally :). And a friend. 🙂 (Even as a little catalyst, my heart tells me I’m nudging y’all in a good direction.)
But mostly, this week-end, I wanted to leave that link.
(And I wanted it to be the unvarnished 4 AM version.)
I’m happy with the link.
It stays within the parameters of what I have seen and experienced.
And I was also hoping to leave it in a positive sort of way.
I’m also happy with the feeling of peace I feel between you and me.
I reached that place.
I hope you did too.
Thanks for making my day with your happy tipsy post. It was the BEST. 🙂
And thanks again for helping me to post the link.
“The “supernatural†is no more than that yet to be understood…â€
So, the presumption is that you know the supernatural exists, but others have not discovered it yet. To use your analogy, if this were pre-Louis Pasture right now you would be telling us that you already know bacteria exists but undiscovered.
You need to support that claim. How do you know this?
Comment by JohnQPublic — 11/2/2007
“The “supernatural†is no more than that yet to be understood…â€
So, Max, what you are saying is that it is OK to believe and worship something that is not yet understood? Wouldn’t it make more sense to be skeptical of something that wasn’t understood?
What value is there in believing and worshiping without understanding?
I think you need to clarify your statement.
Comment by Zer0 — 11/2/2007
You have both (incorrectly) applied your own conceptual paradigm of ‘supernatural’. In this case I refer not to “ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties” or to angels and demons. I refer to that which is as yet unknown yet from which we see some effect in the world. For example, bacteria, once unknown, but which had observable results (disease). We still see effects we can not explain. What should we call their causative agent until we know its true identity?
P.S. Happy Guy Fawkes Day.
Max, I didn’t define any interpretation of supernatural. My question is how can you already know what is unknown–regardless of what it is?
That is because you’re saying there is a supernatural–again, regardless of what it is. I contend there is no evidence of anything existing beyond the natural.
Max, why don’t we call it as it is? Unknown causes or unidentified agents or similar. Why do we have to call it God (another unknown and not understood or maybe non-existent phenomenon)?
Should we call flying saucers God? I think UFO is a better and more accurate name.
“God” is already a very misused and abused word.
Max, you do understand that “supernatural” means “beyond nature,” correct? That is, it specifically means what is non-physical.
I just clicked on the ad for The Final Theory.
Has anybody read this book? Any opinions?
I have to check it out 🙂
In case you don’t see the ad here is the link
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/?gclid=CNOjsoa3xo8CFRpdagodL3hGYw
“…unknown yet from which we see some effect in the world”
That is in incorrect definition. Bacteria are natural, not supernatural.
From the dictionary:
“not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; “supernatural forces and occurrences and beings”
Zer0, do you actually have any professional or academic credentials to support your points on science? Or are you just another self-appointed academician? You can’t understand partial differential equations without training in calculus, for example. If you’re exploring physics, then go get trained in physics first. Then your criticisms will at least be grounded in understanding.
I am aware of the definition of ‘supernatural”. I am saying that this is what it is called by us UNTIL we understand it is, after all, natural. I believe we’re all on the same page here.
–
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Arthur C. Clark
“I am saying that this is what it is called by us UNTIL we understand it is…
Your statement assumes that it exists to be discovered. How do you know it exists to eventually be discovered?
This is the third time I’m trying to post.
I apologize if suddenly all of them post.
JQP,
Here is my info
B.S. Engineering, CSUF, 1990
After graduation started a company designing and manufacturing passive Surround Sound devices (my own design)
Have worked for industrial automation company designing conveyor and bottling systems and doing PLC programing.
Have worked for a tool manufacturing company designing innovative hand tools (several patents)
Currently working for a water conservation company as a Senior Development Engineer. Doing solid modeling using SolidWorks, doing FEA (Finite Element Analysis) and CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics). One of our products is a waterfree urinal system that saves 40,000 gallons of water per year per urinal. We are in 20 countries and spreading.
I’m a problem solver and “out of the box” thinker. This is what they pay me for.
Maybe I should have become a computer programmer like you and figured out all the workings of the universe by typing code all day instead of dealing with it hands on 🙂
Contrary to many, I did not let my education or my career turn me into a closed and narrow minded follower who accepts without questioning anything that is fed to them.
I think once again you made an erroneous assumption. You tend to do that a lot I’ve noticed. You think your credentials give you the insight to judge people and question their knowledge and understanding.
I’m curious though, which of my posts got you so upset?
Good, Zer0. I wondered if your consistent attack on the institution of science was based anything other than your own opinion. You seemed to define yourself more for what you rejected as a whole. After all, we can’t all be surgeons by self-appointment. Someone else must agree to make it so.
Looks like it finally posted.
JQP, that was just a partial listing in technical and scientific area.
I have also designed and built from scratch a 3 wheel car (actually it’s registered as a motorcycle). It has two wheels in front and one in the back. The rear drive system is a Ninja 900 motorcycle with automotive tire. I’m going to turn it into an electric car next year.
I’ve designed and built a 30′ diameter geodesic dome using PVC pipe and standard connection. This was after I read Buckminster Fuller’s Synergy back in college days.
I could go on and on, but the whole point is that I have purposely exposed myself to a wide spectrum of information and experiences to stay open minded.
I hope this shows enough credentials for me to express scientific or other opinions on this blog.
Let me know if you have any other questions. 🙂
Hey all, just FYI, this blog is now being hosted over at http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff. I’m leaving the archives on dabacon.org for now, but if anyone reads this thread actually reads the main blog… 😉
Interesting comments on closed mindedness. I have to agree with DB’s early comment that it’s ok to be close minded. Actually, it’s a sign of experience. If you are forever open to anything, then you’ve learned nothing. As I found things to be objectionable or ridiculous, I became closed minded to them, as I’m sure you have. That is experience.
“Maybe I should have become a computer programmer like you and figured out all the workings of the universe by typing code all day instead of dealing with it hands on”
Well, I can’t let that one go. I’ve travelled the world extensively. Lived in the U.K. for a while, and spent a month in Irian Jaya (that’s Western Papua for you) meeting with tribes of the longhouses of Baliem Valley. (Participated in a Sago root ritual once. Weird. If you’re interested in that sort of thing, it was arranged by Outer Edge Expeditions.)
So, just to correct you on that point, I’ve had some real world experience. Actually, there is a difference between being a computer architect and a programmer. But that’s okay, all I wanted to know if you were just another bonehead ragging on anything institutional or established. I don’t think you are.
Here it is. I highly recommend this to anyone adventurous:
http://www.outer-edge.com/indonesia.html
And, lastly, Zer0 reassure me this was not a project for the Burning Man festival: I’ve designed and built a 30′ diameter geodesic dome using PVC pipe and standard connection
I have reasons for asking that. 1. Those are known projects at Burning Man, 2) I can have no respect for anyone who would attend burning man and then claim to be serious about…anything. Now, I don’t suspect that of you.
Oh, Zer0, something crossed my mind regarding open mindedness and our recent thread. When I was in Irian Jaya, I learned of a tribe, the Goilala, that has a particular fear of ancestral ghosts stealing, of all things, wristwatches given to them by Westerners. So, they hide all their watches in bushes. Their belief is that ghosts are attracted to things relating to time. (This is not something isolated in their culture, but so prevalent as to become part of their religion.) Are you open minded to that? Do you think ghosts have uses for wristwatches? Don’t you think the ghosts could find the watches in the bushes? If you’re not open to this idea, why not? Because I can show you a few thousand people who are.
Oh, then there is the religion of the Yali tribe. They once had their women cook and eat captured young girls from neighboring tribes (as did the Miyanmin) because they believed it would keep them young. Are you open to this idea, too? We’re not talking about some sick individual such as Jeffery Dahmer, but an actual belief system with many followers. Certainly, you would not reject that idea out of hand without giving it a try first, would you?
So, if you reject those ideas as superstition, then what criteria do you apply here that you do not apply some of your own supernatural leanings? Is it based on simply one idea being more appealing to you than another, or is it based on something more?
And for the Dyer crowd, I’m willing to bet that you cannot come up with one reason why a belief in an all-loving god is any more valid than what these tribesmen believe other than you just think so.
I am truly curious how believers in the supernatural think that their own belief is based in truth, but that beliefs found in remote parts of the world like the ones I cited are not.
JQP,
My remark about computer programmer was just my way of biting you back 🙂
I very well know that you are a well read, educated, and traveled man, but if I’m bitten I bite back 🙂
Regarding the Burning Man: I don’t know what that is and don’t even want to spend time Goggling it.
The dome that I built was in my back yard. I put a pond in it and had all kinds of tropical plants. It was a great place to relax watching the fish and listening to the sounds of the waterfall.
I don’t agree with you and DB regarding experiences and closed mindedness. With experience I become more cautious and doubtful but I never close the door completely. I always leave a small crack open. You never know…. 🙂
Thanks, Zer0. Good to hear you’re not a burning man participant. (Your propensity for corporate conspiracy theories together with make-shift plastic geodesic domes made me wonder.)
I responded to the programming remark so it is known there was a time I did get off my ass and my worldview was not built from a keyboard. Your comment was warranted, though.
Conspiracy theorists also intrigue me. The fundamental interest is this: if large-scale conspiracies are so tight-lipped and well run, how is it that they think they are of the few who know? Why do think consider themselves as an elite minority and everyone else blind? It is kind of like Noam Chomsky going on about governmental suppression of information–in his published books! There’s a comical irony to it.
JQP,
Very good and valid questions. Too bad I don’t have the time to answer right now. But I promise that I will.
In the mean time, what do you think about the questions and answers at this link
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html
Have you read the book? Are you going to?
I had not heard of the book before. But your author, Mark McCutcheon, is railed on in physics forums. Doesn’t sound like he’s got a whole of credibility. (Credibility matters a lot. I hate self-appointed scientists.) Here’s a representative sample:
““The Final Theory†(by Mark McCutcheon)
This book is “not even wrong†(to use a famous quote of physicist Pauli). I’ll explain what that is supposed to mean.
A meaningful statement can be said to be either correct, or wrong. “The Final Theory†is full of so many meaningless and wrongful statements, that I consider it to be not even wrong. And I cannot consider it as being anything else.
First of all, it does not contain any valid physical arguments. Plainly speaking, it misrepresents current theory again and again. For example, it argues that gravity violates the law of conservation of energy, because it causes kinetic energy. As an example, the author asks: “How does it [gravitation] cause falling objects and orbiting planets without drawing on any known power source?â€. This is simply explained by the fact that it is the kinetic plus the potential energy which is conserved – a falling object decreases its potential energy as it increases its kinetic energy.
Secondly, the author confuses the basic concepts of work and energy (which you normally learn about in elementary school). For example, it is postulated that if you want to move an object, you must spend energy, and that this is the only way how energy may be invested. This is obviously wrong. When you try to push a wall, no work is done – since the displacement is zero – but surely it costs energy!
Thirdly, the book relies on what one could call “common sense appealsâ€. The author seem to think that science shouldn’t be mysterious or hard to understand. From common sense we have learned many “important†things: that women are less intelligent than men, that homosexuality is “unnaturalâ€, that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that airplanes cannot fly etc. etc. Serious scientist never use common sense as a guiding principle.
Amazingly, the book argues that modern physics – including the pillars of the special and general theories of relativity, and quantum mechanics – is incorrect. The actual situation is that the validity of the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics has been experimentally established beyond any reasonable doubt; and there are numerous positive tests of the general theory of relativity.
The most complicated thing you’ll find in this book is the “Geometric Orbit Equationâ€, or
v^2 x R = K,
where v is the velocity, R is the distance separating two bodies and K is a universal constant. I find it very hard to believe that the fundamental workings of the universe can be understood from such a simple equation.
There is basically only one correct, and in the slightest degree, important statement in this book: It is, that we – including the author – do not know everything, or understand everything yet. But we physicists definitely know enough to say that this book is not even wrong.
Finally, let me mention something quite suspisious about the other reviews of this book. As of today (the 31st of May, 2006), there is a total of 95 reviews. 71 of these are 5-star reviews. This is – of course – quite stunning. Out of the 71 reviews, 63, or 90%, have written only one review in total; furthermore, one person wants to give a 1-star review, but is being counted as a 5-star review, twice; another person is counted with a 1-star and a 5-star review, and yet another 5-star review is counted twice. One top-10 reviewer grants the book another 5 stars, but as far as I can tell, all of this persons reviews (which there are more than 2500 of) are 5-star reviews.
If you really want to learn about modern physics, I recommend books by Weinberg, Randall, Greene or Hawking.
In conclusion, I cannot give this book anything more than one star. And sadly enough, nothing less.
Filed under: physics, pseudoscience
« Amazon.com: more science than junk-science (finally)? Not Even Wrestling?” – Kasper Olsen
Zer0, are you familiar with the term “vanity publishing?” Typically, scientists that publish straight to the public and bypass peer review first are viewed with suspicion. Again, I hate to repeat myself, but the criteria for me is acceptance through peer review first before vanity publishing. I am not a physicist. I want to hear the credible physicists first before the newcomer. Likewise for any field. When any so-called “scientist” goes straight to vanity publishing, something is wrong.
For the record, I’ve been using a Dr. Wayne Dyer meditation CD for a couple of years and it has completely turned my life upside down. There were days I desperately needed money to pay bills where I visualized myself receiving the money and literally found $400 on the street later that day. I’ve had many other experiences visuallizing things happening that later happened I don’t know how anybody could explain…. Anyway, that is my two cents!!
Zer0, if you truly have the qualifications in engineering that you mentioned (which I’m sure physics was in your curriculum, and makes you more qualified than me on the topic) and are in a position to determine if the theory has promise, then demonstrate some depth in physics. Show me in the language of physics and math what the Final Theory is saying and why it maybe so. (It doesn’t have to be a dissertation, a few short paragraphs will do.)
I challenge you because it matters to me if you know what you’re talking about or not. I am not someone to believe anything anyone says just because they’re saying it.
JQP,
Thanks for posting the negative review about the book. I have not read the book. The large quantity of positive reviews got me a little suspicious also, so I wanted to get opinions that were negative to balance the equation. I spent very little time at science forums yesterday and didn’t find anything on the book. Can you send the link to where I can read more balanced reviews on the book or the author?
But I’m curious enough to read the book and make a judgment myself. I’ll probably order it soon. Once I read it and find that the theory has promise I will post my review in a scientific language.
I take it that you are not planing on reading the book, and will rely on other reviewers’ comments for arguing the promise of the theory.
JQP,
“I challenge you because it matters to me if you know what you’re talking about or not. I am not someone to believe anything anyone says just because they’re saying it.”
You make this statement but at the same time you believe the negative reviewers more than the positive reviewers. You are ready to dismiss the theory before even reading the book. I think you won’t even give it a chance. You have already made up your mind. The door is already closed. I would have to force it open before you even consider reading the book.
Your reflex reaction of closing your mind to anything radical and new is probably based on some sort of a fear. You probably feel safer with ideas and concepts that others have approved for you. You like authority and fear to stand on your own. Have you ever dared to walk alone in the “dark”? Or are you always asking “mommy” or “daddy” to hold your hand?
Reading reviews and peer reviews is fine as long as you don’t forget that those are just opinions and not any more valid than your own opinions. Today’s experts may become tomorrow’s idiots. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future. You have to be brave and wise enough to stand on your own when the tide changes direction.
The search I used is “the final theory Mark McCutcheon physics review”. The physics forum link is: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-119385.html
I also saw “crackpot” used in a number of reviews. Don’t know who wrote them, don’t care. When a real physics breakthrough occurs it will be in the academic journals first, not the bookstore. If it is in the bookstore, there’s a high probability it is another coldfusion fraud.
Zer0, it’s great that you believe you have acquired enough knowledge to be the final arbiter on highly complex topics. I do not have such delusions about myself. I know my limitations and I know when others are more better suited than me to offer an opinion.
Even you don’t believe what your wrote because I am pretty sure you would not send your daughter to a doctor who lacks credentials.
Actually, it is the child who thinks they know all and that the universe organizes around them personally. Experience teaches to look to others and that the universe is indifferent.
“don’t forget that those are just opinions and not any more valid than your own opinions”
So you think all opinions are equal in value?
You make this statement but at the same time you believe the negative reviewers more than the positive reviewers.
Correct. It is said that science makes skeptism a virtue. When someone claims something that seems preposterous, it probably is.
Zer0, get over your anti-establishment views. At least the hippies could blame acid, I’m not sure what motivates you to adopt the weird. But can we get back on topic? I’m still waiting to hear some more of that clever rapartee from that ever articulate Dyer group. It seems they cannot defend their position because there is no truth to it.
Zer0, and Dyerites, why does it have to be fear that I reject your ideas? Why can’t it be that I just think they’re just based in ridiculous premises and I don’t think you have enough critical evaluation skills? Isn’t that a much simpler explanation than some pyscho-analysis nonsense? Actually, perpetual energy, spirituality, and the fountain of youth are extremely old ideas, not new. So, this “fear of the new” accusation doesn’t hold. There are a lot of new ideas I am very found of. Nano-technology, for one. But it’s not come up and not appropriate here.
When you have a gun to head and life is just grey and without love and then somebody out of the blue offers you a ray of sunshine, hope and a little faith. Tell me that you would turn away or take notice. I took notice and choice to live thanks to Wayne Dyer. But always God first.
thank you.
Chris
When you have a gun to head and life is just grey and without love and then somebody out of the blue offers you a ray of sunshine, hope and a little faith. Tell me that you would turn away or take notice. I took notice and chose to live thanks to Wayne Dyer. But always God first.
thank you.
Chris
“When you have a gun to head and life is just grey and without love and then somebody out of the blue offers you a ray of sunshine, hope and a little faith. Tell me that you would turn away or take notice.”
I would not turn away. But I don’t have a gun to my head (although, too much Dyer on TV could change that) and my life is certainly not without love. Since he has 3 failed marriages, and I’ve been married once for 30 years I would even argue that I have more love in my life than he ever pretends to have.
Did you have a gun to your head?
“There is another false notion commonly held by the layman, that major scientific discoveries are often the products of amateur minds, and therefore that the authority of the scientist is sometimes to be critically suspected. The philosophical assumption of this is that the discovery of some new fact or idea is usually a matter of accident, and therefore that discovery in science is essentially no different than, say, the finding of a buried treasure, and anyone might stumble onto a chest of doubloons without having any education. While there was a time when big discoveries were made by gifted individuals — think of Alexander Fleming and penicillin, Marconi and radio — most developments are now brought about by organized teams or committees; think of the transistor and of Lunar exploration.
Of course, as we have often seen, a few trained scientists are simply charlatans, and a larger percentage are honestly self-deluded. For any scientist to assume that because he is highly educated he cannot therefore be deluded nor deceived, is a grave error. The layman has much greater difficulty differentiating between the real scientists and the scientists who are simply — innocently — wrong and have chosen to take up residence in that fabled — and increasingly crowded — Ivory Tower. While a scientist in a free society has the same right as any other citizen to speak out on any topic he wishes, many reputable scientists choose to speak or write publicly on subjects outside their established fields of accomplishment or expertise. When a scientist purports to speak authoritatively outside his field of knowledge, he may then be exploiting his reputation — accomplishments and attributes — and playing on that reputation to extend his authority in a possibly unrelated field. An academic who has achieved credibility in the field of statistics cannot legitimately claim that he therefore speaks authoritatively on politics, nor that he is able to detect trickery. In today’s society, we are very accustomed to see celebrities — all too often people in science — endorsing various products and services that have no relationship whatsoever to their professional lives, and motion picture stars sell soap and mortgage plans freely without arousing very much wonder from the public about why they are found on our TV screens and in our magazines performing this task. We are easily blinded by glamour and reputation, which often do not lend any validation whatsoever to such endorsements. This applies both to movie stars and to Ph.D.s.”
From http://www.randi.org/jr/031904science.html
LOL JQP you are too much –
“Since he has 3 failed marriages, and I’ve been married once for 30 years I would even argue that I have more love in my life than he ever pretends to have.” comment by JQP
If you want to argue that you have more love in your life than Wayne Dyer does by looking at your marriage statuses, that is just plain silly. I actually laughed out loud when i read you used that to guage who carries more love. For someone to make a comment as weak as that, it only shows how rediculous your side of the debate can be.
My physical body is only 26 years old, which is not even half of your age and based on reading your debatings, i think that i am way above you when it comes to debating. And i dont even know that much about it.
Zero –
LOL i liked it when you brought up the point that JQP gave a negative review on a book that he hasnt read yet and was based on what the other negative reviews said. And at the same time JQP says “I am not someone to believe anything anyone says just because they’re saying it.”
Now if that isnt a contradiction you will have to tell me what is.
You know i have never gave an opinion review on a book that i have never read. And that is because i do not know what is in it. Even if i had an idea of what was in it the book, i would not have the position to make an educated review.
That just makes me wonder whether any of the other negative reviews written were just based upon what others reviews gave and not from reading the book. I think we call that prejudging, right?
James –
Its great to hear that the Wayne Dyer meditation cd has changed your life for the better but are you referring to the ahh and omm meditations? And also how does it make you feel everyday? Could you go into a little more detail? Thank you
“If you want to argue that you have more love in your life than Wayne Dyer does by looking at your marriage statuses, that is just plain silly.”
You’re right. That was a silly point. However, Dyer devotes a good part of his writing on how to obtain successful relationships. His own failures indicates one of two things: he doesn’t practice what he preaches, or what he preaches doesn’t work. I lean towards the latter.
Zer0’s book. I did not offer any critique, really. But I did dismiss it out-of-hand. My point was that when someone is believes they have a breakthrough in science, publishing a book to change the minds of the general public rather than the science community itself then something is fishy. If an author avoids the very community he is trying to influence, then he/she most likely has something to hide. I have little tolerance for those with such bold claims anyway. Additionally, I have no idea why Zer0 sought my opinion on a physics topic when I told him I was not qualified. If he wants good feedback on the book he should seek someone who has some depth. He did say, after all, he didn’t like relying on other people’s opinions. Why mine was important to him, I have no idea.
Finally, Metalheadjoe, you’re more entertaining when you’re hurling profanities. One of the little pleasures in life is watching those who profess to practice or believe in zen enlightenment blow a gasket over relatively innocuous statements. For someone extolling the benefits of manifestation, you seem to be as petty as the rest of us. Do you really practice enlightenment? And why does most of your commentary focus on my remarks? Are my opinions really the important to you?
While I was typing this, I moved a cloud with m y m i n d .
From “Your Sacred Selfâ€: http://books.google.com/books?id=__igh164lOcC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=dyer+moving+clouds+with+mind&source=web&ots=0DKm6OIW2e&sig=-CeNupmORjSBt4jr5ZCyBLWcAco
“Many of the children in the neighborhood may be thinking, ‘Those Dyer kids are crazy, actually believing they can make clouds into designs.’ But why shouldn’t children learn that they have the same divine intelligence flowing through them that moves the clouds? If it is in everything, which we know is true, then it is in both my children and the clouds.â€
So, Dyer does not say “I think†or is merely expressing a belief in god and a resulting telekinesis. He says “we know†this to be true.
How can anyone take this seriously?
Is anyone familiar with the Boxer Rebellion? Boxers were Asian mystics who, like Dyer, believed their minds could manifest things into reality like he describes. They, too, preached the difference between “a knowing” and “a belief.” They had “a knowing” that western bullets could not harm them so they charged British soldiers in a battle during the late 19th century.
Care to venture how well their “knowing” worked? They were annihilated. It didn’t work for them, why would it work for you?
I came to this discussion via Google because I was interested to see what the vibe was on WD having seen his infommercial on PBS. This guy is so full of it it makes me sick. What bothers me most is his lack of clarity in the making of his claims. He has no valid proof to back up anything that he says. To say that one must be open minded and accept what he is offering is a complete cop out. Just a lazy way of skirting the issue. WD is a fraud deluding weak minded individuals into believing he has something of substance to offer to enhance their life.
I read through almost all of the discussion on this website as I found a great deal of interesting discourse. This whole thread here is one helluva sociology experiment. Me being human, and thus inherently part of the “sociology experiment” has compelled me to comment. Whether or not I agree or disagree with you I want to make it clear that I respect everyone’s input on whatever the subject, and there is a chance I could possibly be wrong in what I am about to say about all you genuises. I am not a genius and there was one time in my life that I was actually wrong.
To metallicajoe: you make statements that you don’t back up and so quick to attack.
Zero: You make some good points but then often get lost in irrational meandering dialogue.
JQP: Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with you at least you back your shit up which is alot more than I can say for the rest of the people here.
Jodee: I agree with you on your assessment of WD’s story about the children by the pool. WD is a completely warped moron in his presentations and conclusions regarding these incidents he reports about the children. Like JQP you can be hard hitting, but also very good about backing your shit up (BTW when I say “your shit” I don’t mean that it’s no good, Jodee and JQP).
Havgr8day: With all due respect you could be the greatest human being (kind, altruistic blah blah blah) on the planet and perhaps a phenominal writer as well, but there is a tone of sappiness and sentimentality that runs through your posts. Again maybe you are a great writer. Not having read any of your work I can’t make a final judgement on that and after all who am I to judge? I, gr8day, am also a writer, of fiction as well, and have been since I was a tyke. I also am a well read student of those works which can be called literary (although I read all kinds of stuff) as opposed to transient garbage, and it is a generally accepted notion by the best writers and critics of our time and the past that the death knell of any work of fiction is sentimentality. Let the work speak for itself. If the narrative “speaks” to us in a sentimental fashion than so be it as long as that sentimentality is not a result of forced narrative interference. It is one thing for a character to have the quality of sentimentality (unendearing BTW), but the writer must leave his narrative free of such discourse. I’m sorry but your posts reek of sentimenatlity, and I will go out on a limb, and say that this sentimentality probably insidiously pervades/invades your fiction writing. But I could be wrong, I was once before in 1969. I was four then I think. I love you too Havgr8day but your nicey nice shit makes me want to disgorge my lunch from my gut. Please be mean and nasty once and show me that you are human. Ironically there is more evil in your phony niceness than that which you might identify as evil (on a surface perspective) in everday life. Not that you aren’t a good person, but please and really I do love you and the world. But I’ll tell you this sometimes I feel hatred and that is ok. It truly is a “dog eat dog” world filled with pain and fear. And just around that corner where darkness hangs heavy over mankind one can also find hope and love and passion. The duality of nature is just that-dual in its nature. Good, bad, indifferent. Humans are a part of that nature. Don’t be an ostrich with your head you know where. Feeling ill toward your brother or sister is merely a part of your nature whether you like it or not. I believe that as reasoning civilized beings we must strive to rise above our animalistic base characteristic however if you study our greatest works of ancient and modern literature you will find that most of these great writers agree that, at heart, we are animals. Read (and perhaps you may very well already have) Homer and Ovid and Bellow and Roth and Dante and Kafka Freud and Nietzsche and Dostoevsky and Gogol and Lowry and Nabokov and Beckett and Balzac and Proust and Conrad and Amis and Flaubert and Joyce and Shakespeare and McCarthy and King and yes even Patterson (although not in the same league but my point is etc. etc. etc. etc.) It’s in all of their writing.
Anyway enough of my being a blowhard, my point is that WD is a phony blowhard trying to sell the public a sack of crap. Many of you who feel like WD has something of substance to offer are somewhat antagonistic towards people like JQP who call WD out on his BS and while I don’t agree with all that JQP says at least, unlike WD, he comes from a stance where he he tries his best to back up his arguments with reason.
If you can’t support your argument then there is no foundation from where we can even begin to debate on any issue. To just spout statements without being able to back them up is of no value to the individual or society. That’s why religion often fails because it cannot be validated (i.e. the existence of any religion’s creator). Same goes for the existence of UFO’s and Bigfoot and ghosts and psychic ability and frauds like Dyer and while I’m at it that criminal who claims to talk with dead people John Edward (of the TV show Cross Country).
I guess what I’m trying to say is anything worth anything, whether it be of value to the world as a medicine, for instance, which is derived by the hard work of scientists and doctors using the power of their knowledge and research, and cold hard science, and the scientific method, to arrive at that useful end product (the medicine)or whether it be of value to the world as art that enlightens and/or entertains, which is derived from both imagination and formal structure (writing something in a piece of fiction akin to “the birds flew into the wondrous sunset” as a claim that it is some sort of revelation within the artwork requires no imagination) the fact is, both science and art require a deft control of the faculties of the imagination. Blind faith works no better in religion than it does in art or science. Imagination is at work in all cases, yes, but it is imagination honed into form, and structure, albeit having its source from dreams or free writing or whatever, that still needs to be shaped by the artist for it to be art that rises above the level of transience.
Please feel free to rip into me now.
These topics do not require this sort of analytical discussion.
Spiritual Energy is having your INNER SELF free from all limitation.
It is very apparent to me when i am creating from this energy and when i am not.
It is like day and night for myself.
I write music.
If you people held unshakable experiential understanding, rather then tripping over yourself and your void intellectual interpretations, then you would come to realize how insane you sound.
Truth is in Dyers works, not always….granted. But he operates from this domain.
Seek experiential knowledge, and you will sift Truth and Non Truth naturally.
Thomas,
The only thing you said that made any sense was that “truth is in Dyer’s works-not always”. How about never. The only one tripping over oneself is you. Experiential knowledge? Please. We all gain experiential knowledge by living. You have basically said absolutely nothing. I write fiction Tom. You write music. We both create. You are great at stating the obvious. If you would like to call that spiritual energy so be it. Nothing the rest of the world isn’t capable of if they put their mind to it. For you these topics don’t require analytical discussion because you have nothing of substance to say. When you begin from a premise that is as vague and as non-committal as yours (i.e. spiritual energy-this can have multiple meanings and is completely subjective) then of course, just like Dyer’s vapid statements that have no basis in logic, one cannot apply something like intelligent analysis. You are preaching blind faith in a holier than thou tone which requires no sound foundation in order to back it up. It actually requires thought to show the fallacy in Dyer’s messages whereas your mindless claim that one need only hold “unshakeable experiential understanding” is just another way of saying “just believe what Dyer or any other flake says without questioning the veracity of his claims”. Using your narrow viewpoint we could just as easily say that water flows uphill and expect people to believe it based upon the notion that we have “unshakeable experiential understanding”. In other words as long as I am convinced of something in my own mind based upon my own experience (even if I am full of shit) then it is true. And I can’t be questioned because my experince and understanding is unshakeable. News flash Tom: Your logic here or better yet the lack of it has resulted in no foward progress in moden civilization whereas questioning baseless claims like those made by Dyer has resulted in learning new truths about reality. Something you seem to be out of touch with. Anybody with a pulse can make a pointless, meaningless statement like yours. You’ve got to do better than that or have the shock treatments at the ward gotten the better of you?
Thomas, a large part of your worldview is shaped by the advances of science whether you realize it or not. That is why you most likely would not buy into some of the obviously silly beliefs claimed by tribesmen in remote parts of the earth. There are some things you know better than to believe because the progress science and analytical thinking has shaped how you–and most of us–see the world.
Therefore, you are filling in the gaps where science has not yet advanced. You believe that there is “energy” beyond the physical world. How is that any different from when European tribesmen believed that spiritual beings directly pushed clouds around by hand? Certainly, you would not believe this now–because science closed that gap. What is to say science will not close the “spiritual energy” gap as well?
Just to clarify my last point: when things are not understood, humans speculate and make it up so they at least have answers. Once things are understood, they naturally stop making it up and move on to speculating on other unanswered questions.
How is “spiritual energy” not straight out making something up?
“…experiential knowledge…”
Hasn’t this led historically to all kinds of ridiculous notions? If you attempt to explain the world as you experience it, almost none of it is accurate: the world appears flat and unmoving, the sun appears to revolve around us, material appears to be 100% solid (and turns out to be mostly empty space), star light appears to be immediate (as opposed to realizing you’re looking at something the way it was 40 years ago!), and so on.
We really cannot progress our understanding through “experiential knowledge.”
I wished Hana was still around. I wondered if she saw Uri Geller on the TV show Phenomenon. (Uri was traveling with Deepak Chopra show his spoon bending trick as Chopra was using this as proof of mind over matter.)
Well, on Phenomenon another magician did exactly the same spoon bending trick. And Criss Angel offered Uri one million dollars if he could give any detail regarding a note he wrote and put in an envelope. A very simple and straightforward challenge. Uri did not take him up on it. That is because Uri knew he could not do it, and in everyone of these cases where so-called psychics are given a golden opportunity to show the world it’s real, then decline. If Uri really had the psychic powers he claimed he would have proven Criss wrong right then and there.
I have always hated this fraud, and PBS even worse for airing this egomanical moron. He goes on and on about himself, and why good things have happened to him, (uhh random genetics asshole and a good face, otheriwse your an idiot. he goes on and on about how basically he deserves his good fortune, because he “works hard at being spiritual blah blah , then he has his idiot daughter sing on stage, whom he actually gloats over, and what good seed he has. He’s a piece of trash.
Hi JPQ. Happy belated Birthday. (We`re both Libras but I`m not too sure about it – bordering on Scorpio). About Uri Geller – Can`t watch the Phenomenon Show — I live in Israel. Uri used to, as well, but no longer (London?). And I`m not very intereste in the Magician-or-Mind over matter debate vis-a-vis spoon bending (of course, as you`ve probably guessed, I do believe in mind over matter – but this is dangerous waters). Still, I can`t resist another comment, who knows where this blog is going: Debating is somewhat futile, or fruitless (sorry!) to my mind, because: It is like speaking different languages. People who are predominantly Thinking, or Logical types (You, Jody, and maybe John Henry; don`t know about Zero and others) relate and understand the world very differently, than, say, Intuitive and Feeling types (Gr8Day). The latter don`t pay so much attention to details and down to earth proof. It`s like, they see the forest and not so much the trees (Hebrew saying). Not only that: they (we) are living in another reality, or experience the world differently, than, say, you, and for them (us) it really isn` the same world. That is why arguing is not so much to the point. And WD does something good to people with a like mind.
Anyway, that`s why I no longer participate in the discussion. But I really liked, what John Henry called “the sociological (experiment) experience – meeting the different personas and imagining you as humans, etc.
Gr8! greetings for the new link. I adore the central theme – the butterfly taking off – and I even tried to add something, but couldn`t get past the “red tape” of signing in etc..
Happy Thanksgiving to you all, if it`s not over by now.
Once upon a time we didnt understand or know about electricity or radio waves, but both still existed.
Hey, Hana. I understand why you don’t participate. But you did come to mind when I saw the spoon bending. I have a friend who’s a professional magician (does a weekly act at the Improv) and showed me how to do spook bending. In fact, I got so good at it now I can make it look like it melts across my fingers. (In my family we had a believer in spoon bending, and I showed it to her yesterday and she fell for it.) I can teach anyone how to do it. It’s actually pretty easy. In any case, I always thought that Uri was doing a trick and was lying about his abilities. Now I know how he does it.
I watched Dr. Dyer today on PBS (11/24/07) and I’ve seen him on several PBS shows since he’s started walking around on bare feet.
In the beginning , perhaps 15 years ago, I thought to myself….hey this guy sounds like he’s got it together and is really on something.
I believe in the power of thought and while I agree with alot of things Dr. Dyer says, I start losing respect for someone that has made mega millions and now can walk around without shoes on TV and preach about how great life can be. Just give it it away he says. Just get your fill and give the rest away he says.
Well Dr. Dyer, I personally think you have gotten your fill maybe 10 fold and now I’m waiting for you to give some surplus to me.
His book on PBS was a mere 125.00. Can you imagine that?
I can’t help but wonder what his next vision is going to be.
If you think about it, Joel Osteen and many other have the same capturing karisma but just in a different way.
Unfortunately we are a society that’s not happy with itself and are constantly striving for someone else to give us the answers to make it a little easier.
When one of these guys comes along with some snake oil, we go for it. It’s the same thing, just a different time and era.
Just my personal thought!!!
John Henry,
(from your post on 11/21)
You state that Wayne Dyer is a fraud.
How can you prove this?
COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTION:
An assignment, should you choose to accept it:
go see MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM.
There’s a little something for everyone:
A shooting star, EINSTEIN (what the heck is he doing in there, hmmm?), a pianist and music writer, a straight to the point completely non- (oh, what was that word – do i need to scroll up? oh yes…) non-sentimental quote from Shakespeare, and for me, the word WONDER and a fantastic quote from Dustin Hoffman to Natalie Portman about living her life (your’s, mine, our’s). (Hmm, what would make THOSE TWO STELLAR ARTISTS want to lend their ENERGY to this film?)
And for the concrete (or should we say, stuck in the concrete?? 😉 ) – make sure to eat a lot of popcorn so that you tie up a bit of the left hemisphere of your brain so you can let go and flow… a little bit.
And if ya’ can’t feel any wonder at the concrete (is it really?) magic in the movie… consider feeling wonder-FULL while regarding every creative and scientific (the two sometimes hold hands, huh?) discovery that it actually took to create, animate, etc. this movie, and others like it.
And where did all of those discoveries originate?
Oooops. Seems we’re back at the beginning.
(BTW, surprised that all of you wanting to offer writing advice haven’t offered this:
Writing 101:
JUST never write JUST. 🙂
Well, this movie gives us one more reason to not want to use the word JUST.
STILL, my favorite quote:
“Just beyond the fall from grace,
is an ever shining place…”
And to anyone who has READ any of my posts, y’all know i’m still treadin’ my way toward that shining place, just like everyone else (behind quite a few of you all).
I’ll save my Einstein and Galileo quotes for my next commmercial break (you didn’t think I’d JUST abandon DB completely, did you? I mean, the meetin’ and greetin’ may get less frequent, but I’m still a weeee bit invested in putting springs beneath the feet of any and all nice, bright to brilliant, science folk….)
Night, night.
Wow, once again, I posted at the same time as Kate – JQP’s was the last post when I wrote mine.
🙂
NOT DYER’S DEFENDER (woah, that would be way too much work for someone as un-knowledgable about his work as ME) however – did see that he had sold his personal library/books on ebay (or someone else did… think for about a dollar a book, maybe hoping they’d land in the right hands?)
Anyway, I do wish that people would ask themselves where the price tag goes during those fundraisers. If it all goes into his pocket, then what funds are being raised?
Oh no, I’m in jeopardy of getting stuck and sticky in here again.
Thus, popping out!!
Night, night… 🙂
should i admit i’m confused? maybe i didn’t refresh the page…
the last post i read before i posted mine was JQP’s post “saying” he wished Hana was around to see Uri…
NONE of the others… until finally NOW.
HI HANA!! Didn’t know about the red tape. So glad you connected (we connected). More connecting to come…
(And when I did read JQP’s post about Uri, I thought, why would Hana want to waste her bright mind on some mind-numbing television? Sort of… sorry guys, comparing hotel porno to making love with the love of one’s life. ???? What does that mean? You can connect the dots. Two completely different things…)
It was like a little reunion tonight.
Maybe something was in the air.
Until our next!!
“Maybe something was in the air…”
or maybe I JUST need to refresh the page more frequently ;).
Commercial break is officially over….
PS (I know, really, I get it…)
Regarding Thomas M’s posts – I’m guessing he didn’t write any more because he had MUCH better things to do.
Do you know much about how some of the greatest musical artists describe their creative process? Ever been around one of them while they are creating?
I can tell you, that at least for a few of the most globally known and respected musical artists of today (with careers spanning over the last several decades) – the way they describe their creative process is a much closer match to the way Thomas M. described his, than to anything else written by anybody else right before or after that.
And to one recent poster, who I shall not name :), I will also add:
“Perhaps thou proJECTS too much…”
Commercial break is not only officially over, but I think all DB programming is unofficially off for the night…
zzzzzzzzzzz
HavAGr8Day, you pigeon hole a bit. I was playing piano at four years of age and recitals by the time I was six. I had no training until I was six. My son is an outstanding drummer and a professional today and has played his whole life.
I can tell you from the perspective of being kind of a “border” prodigy, if you will, there was no magic to it and certianly nothing supernatural. My son says the same. I can remember to this day the first time I played piano at about 3 1/2 years old what I saw (mentally in terms of scales and phrasing) and what I felt. I still compose for the piano today.
In fact, that is my point about the law of attraction. From as early as I can remember it was always assumed I was be a professional musician. Everything I did and the way everyone viewed me was as a musician. But I never made any real money at it. No one was going to pay me to hear be-bop jazz compositions during the reign of the Beatles. So, I went into the most foreign possible subject to me: computer science and I mad e a huge living at it. Science was never my thing as a child at all. Music was.
So, what I focused on and was to the depths of my heart never brought abundance: music. The subject I was not really good at brought the most: science. And I can tell you, first person, that musical creativity is not divine. Not everyone (in fact, I’ve never met a musician–and I’ve played with a lot–who ever said their gift was divine. The talented don’t talk that way unless they’re already religious. It is how I see design patterns in the phrasing of musical pieces that makes the difference. I was able to detect them at an early age, as did my son. (More of a case for genetics than divinity.) So, you’re over-generalizing on “the creative.”
Oh, I forgot to mention that my great aunt was a child prodigy on piano in the nineteen twenties. So, you have her, then me, and then my son all part of a common gene pool who all had a strong proclivity towards music. We all played at advanced levels without training.
I strongly believe it is a physical charateristic. In fact, to prove it I bet a really good whack in the head, a stroke, or some surgical neural re-wiring could render it completely useless. Cause and effect.
And, a final point on the topic of creativity and and its source. A lot of new age types I have come across in the past who have claimed to be creative on the piano or in painting, turned out to actually suck. On the the other hand, some of the most talented people I’ve ever worked with in music talk in left-minded language–I’ve never seen anyone in a music sessions discuss divine sources in order to create music. We talk about the use of tenths on the bass, or how a dominate seventh doesn’t work, or modulating at certain points. I’ve never seen someone meditate in a musical session and then suddenly arrive at some genius new phrasing.
I don’t want to over-generalize that point as sometimes ides will seem to come from nowhere. But they are not always the best, and they do not always happen that way. This can easily be physically: when the brain is relaxed and focused on the task at hand, it works better. So, it has nothing to do with tapping in on a higher source.
I’m curious to know if John Henry, too, uses left-minded approaches to his fictional writing. My father was a fiction writer, my uncle was a very famous writer, James Thurber (there’s picture’s of my Aunt Nettie with him in his biography), and the science fiction writer Greg Bear was a student of my father. I was raised in the literary world. My father spoke of literary style in left-minded language. Use of language to create content, rather than the content itself. James Joyce was an example he used a lot.
John Henry, do you approach it from the left, too?
I was listening to Hay House radio and when Wayne Dyer came on, I could not stand it. A few months ago when my PBS was doing a fund raiser I listened to him to see what he was up to these days. A lot of it sounded very spiritual and very good, but when he got the story of how he took his son’s tee shirt away and tortured him for a long time by not giving it back, I was turned off to him. He thinks he taught his son not to be obsessed with things, but I think he taught his son never to trust him again. He asked the son to show him his favorite shirt, which the son did and then the father not only betrayed him but reminded him of it constantly. I am not a very posession oriented person, but I thought that was a terrible show of power and outright meanness. I think if he ever asks his son again, the son will lie to him just to stop him from pulling this kind of trick on him again.
It still bothers me…don’t know why but I thought about it all over again when I heard him talking today.
The guy is a jerk.
Lin, I agree. There are other examples where he behaves similarly. These are the anecdotes that indicate that he is not really a con man, in the way Deepak Chopra is, out for profit but an intellectual goof who seems to not see the recklessness of his actions or suggestions. I think he is just an out-and-out dumb person who has found a paying audience.
Why does the word supernatural come up here so often? Have I used it? I know I use “something more…”
I think it’s all NATURAL.
I was musing today: about Einstein, Pythagorus, Da Vinci, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, and so many others. Individuals who had no trouble enjoying the world from many different perspectives – and who seemed to feel no need to limit themselves for fear of appearing foolish.
From my perspective, it was very helpful to them…
I mean, most of us know about the Pythagorus’ theorum; but not as many of us know how much Pythagorus and his colleagues explored the world of symbolism in numbers – essentially NUMEROLOGY… and music and….(and how it all seemed to weave together for them in reaching higher levels of understanding). Anyway, they never seemed to get too stuck on having to be 100% rational so as to retain any sense of credibility. Their curiosity seemed to lead them everywhere, … and eventually into making so many contributions to so many different fields -math, numerology (the beautiful symbolism of numbers), music etc.
From another perspective, look at Da Vinci – most noted for his art of course. But yet, many also are aware of his very “scientific” bent: sneaking into crypts to disect … corpses … so as to understand anatomy which contributed to his paintings and sculpture. And then there was his sketch book… and if I recall, he was one of the first to have a sketch of a flying machine that resembled a helicoptor…
I think when the brain and soul/psyche is freed up, and allowed to utilize all of itself, it has the greatest ability to make the most profound leaps. (With help of course from the little Something More 🙂
Elizabeth Kubler Ross – contributed so much to a compassionate, humane understanding of death and dying – having at least one book that is used in universities and some medical schools still today. But if you read some of her later works, she may seem a little OUT THERE (And hey, i have no problem with that).
Whether it is science, art, creativity, spirituality (I really do believe spirituality is a distinct study and body of knowledge in itself) – it does all seem to have the same pattern of learning, assimilating, making mistakes, (making mistakes/learning perhaps redundant…) and growth…
(Why would individuals who spend years studying those principles not having something more to offer than those who do not?)
I “JUST” WONDER what individuals lose when they try to boil all of their thoughts down to the rational.
(Sometimes this site seems to be all about semantics to me… Anyway…)
Did Elizabeth Kubler Ross become a physician, and then become looney? Well, I don’t think so. I think there’s SOMETHING MORE, and even if I haven’t experienced what she did, I feel no need to discount her later experiences.
And in the realm of when individuals are predominantly seeking the spiritual path, I naturally assume that there is going to be a similar learning curve; exploration, discovery, theories, practice… mistakes, real learning – and experiences that go beyond that of the average Joe – that’s how it works in most fields, yes?
There isn’t a topic that has been covered on this site that I’ve considered SUPER-natural.
It all feels profoundly natural. What is, what could be, what is to be…
At the risk of making someone really bored, I’ll repeat one more time that I think all of the experiences that I/others/have had ARE natural – including the psychic ones. I think the something more is natural – even if it fall into a category that JQP defines as “supernatural.”
Just because they’re natural doesn’t mean that they aren’t spiritual. For me, that’s the semantics, parsing words stuff.
Funny, JQP has a family full of creatives, and I have a family full of creatives AND scientists (physics, and “rocket scientists” as well 🙂
It’s the one thing I’ve never gotten on this site – the polarization. I don’t experience it within my circle of varied friends and family (regardless of beliefs).
WELL.
The quote in Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium is: loosely: “your life is an occasion; rise to it.”
JQP, why did you abandon your music so easily? Did it not bring you that much joy? how do you know it doesn’t still promise you great fulfillment (along with other things in your life?)
And funny how you mentioned the Beatles… it was one of the individuals from that band – that I had the outstanding good fortune of hearing compose. FELT a lot like Thomas M. described it.
A LOT. A certain musician who one might call Stevie, if he were perhaps a friend, I believe would most certainly describe his creative process as being very similar as well.
Anyway, whatever the creative process – I say, HAVE AT IT! In that area, however a person arrives, whatever the journey – it’s to be celebrated in my book.
Lastly, I think Hana made some interesting dot-connecting points though. (I thought of the Myer-Briggs testing when I was reading the post.) Perhaps some of us do have processes that are much more related and connected to those from the “domain” that Dyer draws from – that make us feel really comfortable and familiar with the reality he describes… (Again, not speaking for all of it…)
And in terms of Dyer, I do have to say one last little thing…
I have a minor in child development (what does that mean? not much, but i do love the little ‘uns!) However, so many references on this site regarding Dyer’s behavior with children have reminded me of Maria Montessori. I actually loved her perspective, and found it really optimistic and practically helpful when working with children in all sorts of settings. I never addressed the topic specifically on this site, cuz… you know, the stage/drama thang.
I just think there’s a lot of fertile ground in all of this. Fertile ground = good potential for GROWTH for all of us. ANd you know me, growth freak :).
Nice touching base.
Nice learning about your musical background JQP.
If you ever play nearby, I’ll pop in to support ya’ ;). would love it.
I’m a little disappointed in myself, not feeling as catalystic 🙂 as I normally have fun feeling here.
Probably cuz I’m inundated with lots of da’ family out visiting and haven’t had many moments to myself.
Trying to balance all the different schedules and demands of close and extended family during a bit of an intense week… is keeping my thinkin’ pretty firmly within the halls of my brain.
Ooooooo, i like it when it gets to wander yonder…
Soon!
PS I really would love y’all to see that movie.
It’s a bit like excavating jewels, and reminded me of a lot that we bounce around on this site.
Alrighty.
Until the meetin’ and greetin’ has a chance to happen again.
🙂
OH, and just like science and creativity can enjoy holding hands,
why wouldn’t creative inspiration and craft like to cozy up too?
I mean, it’s all part of the wonderful lump of life’s clay…
WOW! I bet you weren’t expecting this many responses. I only read the first 15 or 20. I liked Tim’s comments. It was difficult for me to believe in Christianity because i would base my belief on other christians. Big mistake. Many times they are trying to rule with fear and guilt.
If you actually read the bible- start with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first 4 books of the new testament. All 4 are about Jesus’s time here on earth. I love to talk about the bible and also hear opposing views. I do believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day. That I believe without a doubt. It would take me a while to explain. I will if your interested. However I do still have 2 questions about the bible that i haven’t been able to find answers to. 1. dinosaurs? and 2. suicide. Anyway great site.
Let me ask you, Andrew. I’m not a Christian, or religious in any way, and so certainly you are more familiar with its teachings. Asking and receiving for forgiveness is at the heart of Christianity, correct? So, in all seriousness, if someone as evil as, say, Hitler asked for forgiveness in the last 5 minutes of his life, should he be rewarded with eternal salvation in heaven? Does Christianity have within its theology a tenet such as that one can commit sins too horrible to ever be forgiven?
I found myself readin many more posts. My wife is cleaning and the kids are sleeping so it worked out great. These posts are very amusing and enlightening. I was very amused when metallicajoe would exchange with jqp. Anyway, a little background for you all. I grew up Lutheran, but didn’t understand why. My mother is and was very manic depressive. Father was and still is an angry, bitter, alcoholic. I still love them both.
I blamed my horrible formative years on my parents and god. I’ve been to the gates of hell many times. Something always pulled me back. I’m 33 now and lovin life. Marriage can be a challenge sometimes. We have been together 14 years, married for ten. My wife is awesome. I could fill the page with her and our 3 kids. I’m suspicious of many churches and people who profess to be religious. Like I said before I believe steadfastly in Jesus Christ. I will expand on this later. I hope to add to the conversation here. later
good question John. The best way to answer this is to think of the United States. We have laws to govern us. We are a free country, but we still have guidelines. If you were to steal or kill you should be punished. But you are still free to make decisions. Hitler’s redemption is between him and God. I dont get a say in the matter. lol
“Why does the word supernatural come up here so often? Have I used it?”
Do you believe in things that are not physical? Then by definition, that is the meaning of supernatural. Not its connotation, but its definition.
A typical strategy when arguing with new agers. They like to give new meanings to words, which shifts the argument.
If you do not believe in “supernatural,” then you believe all things are physical.
HavAGr8Day:
“Why did you abandon your music so easily?”
Easy. It was either that or starve. I found more “abundance” in one year in computer science than I did in 20 as a musician.
“I “JUST†WONDER what individuals lose when they try to boil all of their thoughts down to the rational.”
So much is *gained* by the process! Contrary to now popular maxims that imply an abandonment of wonder when you “count the stars,” more wonderment has come from rational thinking than religion or the spiritual could ever offer. Case in point: quantum mechanics. Talk about spectacular. And it came from a strict rationalization process that was refined over time. Nothing is lost in that process, more has been gained than ever. You can be sure we would have never got to the moon on the spiritual imagination, which, as was stated, is not all that imaginative.
Maria MontessoriAnother word for unstructured. If you want your child to thrive and live a productive life, nothing beats structure. I have many in my family. I have seen it practiced both ways. I can tell you structure produced more well-adjusting people than the unstructured lifestyle. Many from the unstructured turned to drugs (as Dyer’s did, interestingly enough), depression, anti-social behavior and so on. Mind you, too much structure is equally as bad.
“Why did you abandon your music so easily?â€
Actually, there’s another reason more pertinent to this forum that I failed to mention: life is not about self-fulfillment and making yourself happy. Music is not important. It is a whim; a pastime; entertainment. Focusing on survival leads to a much better well-adjusted life than the pursuit of pleasure. That is why, as recently reported, that rock musicians have a mortality rate twice that of the population http://living.oneindia.in/insync/rock-stars-pop-stars-early-death-040907.html
I’m glad I gave it up. I do not see music as really helping anyone all that much. Yes, it entertains and can provide moments of pleasure, but in the grand scheme is not a productive element. I feel that way about all artistic endeavors. If it does feed you or someone else, then it is not all that important.
Andrew, in a way you side-stepped the question with I don’t get a say in the matter. While I get that God is your ultimate and final arbiter on all things and not us mere mortals, biblical content does attempt to express the will of God and tells us how to best get him to like us. It does say in many ways how we will be forgiven and rewarded, and does not side-step it with, “don’t know, that’s up to the almighty.”
As a believer in the bible, how do you explain Constantine’s editing of the biblical books for political gain, with the Christian movement at the time, during the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, and, moreover, the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? A politician single-handily determined what would and would not be in the bible for his own purposes. Additionally, no one knew who actually wrote the gospels so it was *guessed* it was Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Also, you are undoubtedly familiar with the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. (Forgive me for being graphic, but there is a point.) If you pay attention to this story, it depicts God punishing homosexuals, but rewarding incest–Lot, the nephew of Abraham, later has sex with his daughters in a cave. It also depicts gays as having physical anal sex with angels in Lot’s house.
Do you then believe incest is sanctioned by God? And do you believe it is possible to have anal sex with angels?
JQP, I thought my answer may have been vague. sorry. More to the point would be sin is sin. We are all afflicted with it. How we handle it is up to the individual. God views sin the same. He hates it, not the individual. Something as simple as looking at another individual outside of marraige lustfully is sin. What hitler did was horrible and wicked. God sees it the same. He doesnt hate one more than the other.
Regarding Constantine’s editing of the biblical books for political gain. We haven’t seen pandering like this before. Have we? Of course we have. Politicians pander to what ever group will give them success. I’m trying to find where Constantine edited the biblical books for political gain. I know that he tolerated Christianity. Also offered reparations to the church. The story of Lot who was the nephew of Abraham. He lived in Sodom with his wife and daughters. He had been there about 8 years I believe, so he was comfortable in the city. God’s angels came to him at the request of abraham. They told him to leave the city because God had become frustrated with their evil ways. When the angels were in Lot’s house ,the people of sodom came to the door to have sex with the angels. In my bible there is no mention of all the citizens being male or the angels being all male. I have also seen a southern Kentucky church picketing outside military funerals. One picket sign read god hates fags and there proof was malachi 1:3 but Esau I have hated, and turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals.
I have yet to find proof of Esau being gay. This goes back to Genesis. Esau and Jacob(renamed Israel) were twin brothers. They were born to Rebekah and Isaac, who was the son of Abraham.
I’m trying to keep it short because with 3 kids and babysitting an infant for a friend, I get interrupted often.
Anyway I don’t believe Lot gets rewarded for incest. In fact I believe it’s more of a punishment. However Jacob(Israel)was married to 2 women and had kids with both plus there housemaids. So I can see where Mormons had gotten the idea of polygamy.
Also, my wife and I have many friends who are gay.
I grew up with the son of a minister who was flamin. He was my best friend. Our church wanted everyone to sign a petition that would introduce a bill in our state to ban gay marriage. We didn’t sign. Are we going to hell now? The U.S conference of Catholic bishops would have you believe that. Political gain? yes. Constantine would be proud. Thats all I have time for
For anyone believing in psychic phenomenon. How can anyone believe this nonsense? They’re fakes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo&feature=related
And this one’s for Hana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YJDh1xjSeU&feature=related
Thank you for the response, Andrew. Note, that the emboldened sentence refers to the two angels who Lot let spend the night. Clearly they are male. Lot protects the angels–by offering his daughters up for gang rape, no less!–because he obviously believes the angels can engage in corporeal sex. (He’s standing there with them.) But then God destroys the city yet saves Lot and his daughters knowing they will have sex. This strongly suggests that God considers homosexuality more of a sin than incest. Much more sinful.
If you buy into this, then you believe being gay is more of a sin than a father who molests his daughter. One leads to severe punishment, the other does not. And on some level I bet you realize the humans can’t have sex with angels. I should not put words in your mouth, but if you think that’s nonsense why not the bible’s other exaggerations?
Where I’m going with this is: What criteria to you use to believe the parts you accept, and reject the parts you don’t want to believe? Of course you may be one who takes the whole bible literally. If so, then how would you explain all its contradictions? Most explain away the contradictions by cherry picking.
Finally, do you think a God who mass murders like this is worthy of worship?
Gen. 19:1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom –both young and old –surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
“Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
======================================================
So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Otay JQP.
I think for anyone who reads your posts; you’ve revealed a some meaningful information lately. And i’m glad (I don’t think it’s in a bad way for you…).
No value in music or art or literature?
I guess if you don’t value or believe in the human soul, or some essence in each of us, then that would make some sense…
(Sometimes, I think of you as the self-assigned FSA {substituted for FDA} 🙂 – wanting to make sure that everyone stays safe and sound. Add to that the fact that you seem to want to stand firmly on ONLY physical ground, (even though you’ve already expressed that what appears to be physical is often not) – it just makes me feel as if deep down you really do want to PROTECT everyone from what you perceive to be the dangers of EVERYTHING.
The desire to protect must come from a good place.
But I’m not sure that I have ever known a person as … rejecting of so MUCH of the human experience. ??
JQP, it’s not necessary to get too personal, but you have mentioned your marriage. I don’t even know how to address the question, because I feel anything you might write would effect your family/wife also…
But do you believe in LOVE? (And if so, how??)
Perhaps out of love, you focused upon earning a living – and surviving, for all of your family. And that is such a noble thing I think.
But is that all that there is for you now – even now that you’re semi-retired? That’s it? Survival?
In your secular human points, you talked about the value of growth and creativity in a society… how does that fit in to things?
Also JQP, you’ve referenced American Idol (have NEVER watched it), and the Chris Angel magic show (have also never watched that)…
I can see considering these types of things to be whim and entertainment (gosh, sorry to Chris ?Angel and to American Idol) – but ALL of humanity’s history of art/music/literature/philosophy … whim?
I can’t imagine living in such a world.
No inner essence. No love (how could there be if we are all only physical selves trying to survive only physically?). No expression and growth of the inner self (what inner self is there?). What journey is there?
It seems so empty. Dark. Pointless. (Not life, but the life that those views create.)
Do you disdain psychology too? Philosophy? Point: in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, survival is level one. All the good stuff comes later…
Anyway, about your comment on rock stars – I don’t think they are NECESSARILY the examples I would use when I think about music that lifts and transforms and heals. (Tangent: there is a significant amount of medical data now on the effects of some forms of music, and sounds, on the healing process.)
JQP, I used to josh you about doing more charity work (actually don’t really like the word charity or work 😉 – I think of it more like: humanity love :).
But now I think, wow, this man was born with a natural expressive tendency and talent toward music? Something that everyone around him saw and appreciated? Something you mention having done for twenty years?
Well, if you do believe in love, think of all of the loving ways you could use that gift…
even if it is to write a song for each of your grandchildren. To compose something for your wife (in honor of all that you’ve given and sacraficed for each other – and all of the good stuff too).
To compose something that expresses what someone in your life (who may be facing the end of their life) has meant and means to you?
Do you view comforting, soothing, caring, be-friending as whims? (I’m guessing NO by the way.)
Anyway, you always have the choice to connect to your musical self in a new, fresh way in which you feel it contributes something positive to the world. Maybe even positive to the survival of the world…
I’m obsessing about your shoved-aside musical side, I KNOW. I’ll stop… (Although it is challenging…)
About the value in focusing upon survival – I don’t de-value that desire (especially from a parent/spouse perspective/responsibility) – however, it’s just that my years of working in a hospital (NEVER watch those hospital shows either btw, wayyyyy too silly to me – oops, sorry to ALL those shows, what do I know?) – but all of my years working with people who have suffered physical losses/trauma/ends…have taught me one thing: you can do everything you possibly can to create a safe, survival enhancing structure around you – and in the blink of an eye, it can all fall away…
Truth be told, in the blink of an eye, it WILL at one point all fall away. And the young man who is driving a car one day, and paralyzed from the waist down the next day (through no fault of his own), could be any one of us. There is no “us” and “them.” We are all ‘US.’
At the same time, even in the above scenario, and even in “worse” ones, an individual can still find a new lease on life – value, meaning, purpose. I know people whose feel their quality of life actually improved tremendously after what society might judge as a tragedy… yet it was the one thing that opened their eyes to what was most important to them (usually love and loving one’s fellow man – RIGHT NOW – because there is an acute awareness that that is what we have).
Anyway, I find it confusing, and maybe actually too hard to believe that you really believe in only two things: the PHYSICAL, and helping the physical to survive. ????
You can control some things. But you can’t control most things – unless you make you life extremely small. And even then, it will never work.
Anyway, more than ’nuff said.
About the psychic “phenomenon” – I didn’t check out that link. But from a strictly RATIONAL perpective, I believe in it – because I’ve experienced it – and there is so much data on it. There is even some knowledge accruing on what predisposes some toward being more susceptable to having the experiences (something about being closer to the neurotic spectrum of the psychological stucture, as opposed to say the tightly wound, high-screening non-empathetic psychopathic structure – if we’re talking about extremes)…
Anyway, this is all a bit random, even for me I think. But it does bring it all back around to the original reason that I brought up my writing/creativity in the first place: during the periods in my life when creative energy is really flowing and dominant, I have experienced the most concrete psychic experiences.
Sometime, after the dust settles down the line, I’d be happy to even share some of it with DB, or even YOU JQP. People who have known me for decades have witnessed it. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Again, that’s why for me, it’s NATURAL.
I don’t believe I’m just a group of cells. 🙂
And all of the things that occur in my life occur naturally. I breathe, sleep, and so forth.
Again, not re-inventing the wheel. So many people are much farther ahead in their understanding and experience of these things than me.
********************
Lastly, about John Henry’s (name?) points about writing structure etc (not trying to derail the blog here…), but, yes, of course… even in high creative writing one is given some tools for their writing chest…
101: Plot, character, character, location, character arc, as well as more subtle things like pacing, suspense, beginning-middle-end… show don’t tell, etc etc etc.
HOWEVER, I think for many people (perhaps like you with your talent for music?) – it is often sort of like – once you learn to crawl, walk, run, swallow solid food, etc., it all falls into the background for the most part – appearing in later stages when too many people involved in a project say “you’re showing so much that I’m wishing you would TELL a little more…” Or …”this isn’t clear for me…” Etc.
But the WONDER I experience with my creative process, is simply how much better my work is when I’m doing what is known more as “automatic writing” – and am extremely UNconscious of what I am writing. Later, after I figure it out – what I’ve written that is, I may become more conscious
🙂 But I will say again that when I set pre-plot a story, I (my conscious self) is WAY too involved – and WAY too limited. Most of my work involves getting out of my own way, so that something larger than what I would consciously come up with can flow through me.
Having said all of that, I’d rather not have to go over it again with John Henry or even Henry James 🙂 for that matter. Why? Because it makes something I like to be intimate, natural, and not very conscious – almost self or other conscious. Exactly not my point.
Again however, I know my process fairly well by now. But I am sure that everyone else’s process is as individual as they are.
***************************************
In grad school, I did a research project which involved children in homeless shelters, head-start programs and in (Maria) Montessori schools. I found the Montessori schools to be quite structured actually.
Maybe a problem with blog sites in general: too many inadequate sound bites :).
***************************************
I hope, as Hana did, that everyone had a warm, filling and safe Thanksgiving.
You all popped into my mind late Thanksgiving eve – I sent you ALL good wishes. (Maybe you felt them :).
JQP, I hear a piano calling you…
That level of natural talent, and love for something, and you can turn your back on it… forever?
Na…………
Not when it’s beckoning you like it is……
PS: three things I’ve been called on this blog, but in no other area of my life…
a. ADHD 🙂 🙂 🙂
b. New age
c. sentimental
(sensitive, yes, but never sentimental…)
now, g’nite everybody!!! (I’ve still got da relatives to entertain tomorrow 🙂
HavAGr8Day:
Let me add one to your list – long-winded!
HAGD, explain anything you have written here that does not fit this definition. You have expressed a wide range of spiritual inclusion, clearly you show “self spirituality” and not religious dogma, and show a believe in mind-body-spirit living.
New Age is the term commonly used to designate the broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture, characterized by an eclectic and individual approach to spiritual exploration. Self-spirituality, New spirituality, and Mind-body-spirit are other names sometimes used for the movement.
“In your secular human points, you talked about the value of growth and creativity in a society… how does that fit in to things?”
Growth/progress is measured by one’s improvement in overcoming life’s problems. Driving a car, getting a job, providing adequate income, preparing for retirement are all milestones of growth. Creativity is certainly an aspect of complete living, but not in the childish nonsensical way you describe it.
I know, you think growth is opening yourself to psychic fakes, new age spirituality, becoming more child-like (go figure how that is growth), and believing you are getting more in touch with yourself by putting your dramatic emotions on display. That’s fine. But I personally do not think people who practice that way of living are truly growing. Typically, they just wind up depending on others to get by and never are all that self-sufficient. Not always, but enough to make that statement.
“That level of natural talent, and love for something, and you can turn your back on it… forever?”
Like I said, I still compose. I didn’t turn my back on it, I just never made a living off it.
I have many times in my life come across those who talk “new agey” and claim musical talent. Typically, not always, they are never nearly as talented (nowhere near) as those who express themselves in left-minded language musically. Serious, hardcore musicians just normally don’t act in ways you describe. My point is, at the top of the talent scale in music, you find fewer of the new age type. Not that there is any cause and effect there. There’s not. Anyone can possess talent regardless of their beliefs. But you were making a case earlier that the more creative people tend to be more in touch with the “source.” And I’m saying the ones at the top of the talent pyramid will tell you “nonsense!” They will tell you their talent comes from hard work. Classical training tends to produce superior musicians. (A point heavily driven in Keith Emerson’s biography. Surely, the most talented rock musician ever.)
b. New age
c. sentimental
(sensitive, yes, but never sentimental…)
Not ADHD? Do you think your writing here is focused?
Not sentimental? Are you kidding me? Here’s the definition: “maudlin expressions of sympathy”; “mushy effusiveness”;
Everything you’ve written here is either maudlin or mushy. No question about it. Your friends must not be very honest with you.
I agree with Max’s addition. I’ll add my own:
d. Defensive
e. Occasionally deceiving
f. Naive
g. Given to stereotyping
h. Definitely not a grammarian
i. Easily angered (occasionally)
j. Want to be everyone’s friend
k. Wants to hate me, but can’t bring herself to say it (by the way, hate is okay. Loving everyone unconditionally is not only impossible but unhealthy)
“In your secular human points, you talked about the value of growth and creativity in a society… how does that fit in to things?â€
An addendum to my earlier comments on this: Growth is about expanding responsibility. The more responsible you become in life, the more you’re in a position to help others. You cannot give money if you don’t make enough to give. To provide for others you must have the means to do so. Plain and simple.
The kind of personal growth that Dyer preaches is self-centered childishness. His growth is measure d by how happy you make yourself (yes, I know he includes others, but his philosophy is by and large centered on making yourself happy and content). I believe just the opposite.
Growth is how responsible you become, and, thus, how much of a dependable pillar you build for others. If you life puts little emphasis on money, acquiring expanded means of support, then what good are you to others? If your life is about *largely* admiring sunsets and smelling every rose you pass then are you really growing beyond your childhood? Would you not agree that providing a home (the building itself) for someone else who needs it is a better measurement of growth than thinking good thoughts?
“I think for many people (perhaps like you with your talent for music?) – it is often sort of like – once you learn to crawl, walk, run, swallow solid food, etc., it all falls into the background for the most part – appearing in later stages when too many people involved in a project say “you’re showing so much that I’m wishing you would TELL a little more…†Or …â€this isn’t clear for me…†Etc.”
You’ve obviously never studied how Ernest Hemingway or James Joyce wrote. Literary style and word choice *becomes* the differentiating factor. In fact, device plots and character development become second nature. What distinguishes a great writer from the average is language more than content. Look at Sylvia Plath’s work, for instance. Her subject matter is nothing that millions haven’t experienced (depression, troubled marriage, etc.). But her use of language is extraordinary. It is not that she is painting a vase, it is how she paints it that makes the difference.
This is exactly what I mean:
Hemingway’s prose style was probably the most widely imitated of any in the 20th century. He wished to strip his own use of language of inessentials, ridding it of all traces of verbosity, embellishment, and sentimentality. In striving to be as objective and honest as possible, Hemingway hit upon the device of describing a series of actions by using short, simple sentences from which all comment or emotional rhetoric has been eliminated. These sentences are composed largely of nouns and verbs, have few adjectives and adverbs, and rely on repetition and rhythm for much of their effect. The resulting terse, concentrated prose is concrete and unemotional yet is often resonant and capable of conveying great irony through understatement. Hemingway’s use of dialogue was similarly fresh, simple, and natural-sounding. The influence of this style was felt worldwide wherever novels were written, particularly from the 1930s through the ’50s.
I have listened to all of Waynes audio tapes which is hours and hours and hours of stuff.
So i would think that i have most of the experience as to what wayne says and talks about.
I cant see one even logical reason why someone would hate him or call him a fraud or fake.
And when i read some of the disagreements by jqp or john henry i still see no logical disageements to tell me he is a fraud. I believe that dyer speaks alot of truth and it seems to me that he a genuinly kind person. And what he says makes alot of sense to me.
And jqp, im losing interest with arguing with you cuz the way you run in circles i could never win with a person of your stubborness and closemindedness. Now this is your turn where you say how you are not closeminded and say that dyer is a fake.
But first,
There is no right and wrong (if you look from the big picture)
God is all loving, does not judge nor punish (NO im not talking about the bible god cuz obviously that god is violent)
There is no hell only heaven which we all came from and will all go back when we die.
Now you can go ahead and tell me i have no proof of this stuff.
Goodnight
Oh and by the way Mr. John Q Public – You should try not to use such big words that most people dont understand the definition to i noticed you do this alot – congrats on your wide range of vocabulary but it doesnt help to get your full meaning across to the average joe so please try to impress others with your vocab outside the forum please. Thank you.
“And when i read some of the disagreements by jqp or john henry i still see no logical disageements to tell me he is a fraud.”
I’ve tried to make clear I don’t think he is a fraud in the since he is trying to con. I think he gives reckless advice and I don’t think he commands the intellect to see that it is reckless. He sells a flawed product.
“You should try not to use such big words..”
Where I’ve used words that I think others may not know, I have defined them. I don’t recall using any words that a college freshman would not understand.
Besides, did you read the opening commentary to this forum? “No eigenvectors, no eignenvalues, no renormalization group.”
Perhaps I’m not the one in the wrong forum.
I agree with Max :).
(And I have always used a casual conversational style on this blog – for better and for worse.)
In terms of all the opinions on creative writing 🙂 – I said in the beginning that I hold my creative (professional) writing as sacred, and I’m still not going to go into it too much on this blog. (However, I will “say” that I NEVER have the above sorts of “conversations” with fellow writers/authors. {I use those words together – because authors don’t author, they WRITE… and are authors of published works.} Anyway, the above comments remind me of AP Lit high school courses {and Cliff notes} – not the real, much more organic world of inspiration and craft.)
I said to John Henry, “Perhaps you proJECT too much…” 🙂
And I’ll say it to you JQP as well. (And to all of us really.)
JQP, why would I hate you?
(Mostly I wish that you could keep everything GOOD that you already seem to know, and better sift through what you don’t seem to understand – so that you could integrate it differently. I think it’s very possible that this whole experience may lead you in directions that you never predicted.)
Anyway, early on, when I did lose my compusure, it wasn’t out of anger. I think what I learned in those initial experiences – (so easy to see when it’s in type) – is that while I was being sensitive to one set of individuals (and trying to prevent perceived cruetly and unfairness), I was fairly insensitive to the individuals I perceived to be perpetuating it (YOU JQP first and foremost).
(I think that’s my unofficial apology to you 🙂
While we disagree about a lot of things, isn’t that NATURAL? And if we discuss things – without belittling or name-calling (the way I was taught back in elementary school) – is it really personal?
Well, I will close with a couple of things –
I don’t think it is very scientific or rational to deny/disclaim that which can’t be measured or understood fully… yet. (Otherwise, why not write ‘The End’ on the big book of scientific knowledge now?)
Just as the western medical field is becoming much more ‘w’holistic (and effective), I’m guessing that the field of science is expanding in multiple directions as well…
So many of the topics discussed (chaotically!) on this board – are inherently challenging for science to study with many of its current methods. But that doesn’t mean that the field won’t eventually DISCOVER ways of evaluating the topics.
(Perhaps someday there will be ‘right brain methodology’ 🙂 which will offer significant, additional tools… AND the sort of measurability upon which science thrives.) GROWTH. It’s GOOD. 🙂
But if you go back to my second post – to kill what one doesn’t know because ONE(SELF) doesn’t know it or understand it yet – seems silly (expressed as the playful me) – AND irrational (expressed as the logical me).
SO.
Now that my out-of-town gang has departed, I must get back into the swing of all of my life’s responsibilities again. (Thus, no justifyin’ the long-winded posts for quite a while – heyyyy, who’s cheering? OH, that was me…too…)
PS I do often think this site should have red tape across it – prohibiting anyone under 18 from accessing it – too many big topics tossed about without any sort of resolution or real context…
PSS For anyone who wonders why I haven’t written a list of JQP’s qualities in response to his list – it’s pretty much because for me, with my understanding, that would be pointless, and perhaps harmful. I’d rather spend time (if I had it) being happy and tipsy with him (and his wife) in Santa Barbara.
LOVED JQP’s last food for thought comments on the ‘finding $400.00’ post.
Metallicajoe, you seem to have trouble constructing an argument, or you just don’t. Let me rephrase that. Your comments either take pot shots at me (which is pointless because I have way more time on my hands than you) or that you simply state that you agree with Dyer. But no supporting information or augmentation to the thread.
Let me help.
1. How do you distinguish between a child making a birthday wish blowing out the candles and manifestation? What evidence do you have that one works over the other? If you say they both work, then every child gets their wish??
2. Do you know about the attempt to mentally levitate the Pentagon in 1968? (There were hundreds involved.) Needless to say, they failed. That is a strong case against mind over matter.
3. Since Dyer and his ilk have been manifesting for a long time now–and I think it is safe to say it is for world peace–what evidence is there to show it did anything? With, presumably, more and more “manifesting” in the nineties, we were attacked in 2001 and then illegally invaded another country. Now international political tensions are higher than ever. The world peace thoughts didn’t seem to work. Also, are you aware of the recent research of prayer to help relatives recover from surgeries? Two groups: one was asked to pray, one was asked not to. The one that asked not to had a better recovery rate. This does not suggest that not praying helps, but that it is random. Could have gone either way. But clearly praying (i.e. manifestation) didn’t work.
4. The individual who found the $400 dollars and kept it. Actually, if he had listened to Dyer’s message he would have returned the money not keep it. That kind of anecdote shows a misunderstanding of what Dyer is aiming at with his manifestation. He says in one book, “Will you win the lottery? No! But you’ll feel like you did.” It is not about acquiring a wade of cash. Keeping the $400 was not the moral action.
Food for thought.
“The individual who found the $400 dollars and kept it.”
This is also a great of example of why I say Dyer is not a fraud, but reckless. He does encourage moral action. I’m all in favor of that. But his approach is such that people like “the individual” mentioned above now believes when he comes across someone else’s cash that it belongs to him because he is now convinced–thanks to Dyer–the universe has answered his vision and is giving it to him. That is wrong-headed thinking.
Proper thinking is this: “Someone lost their money and I should find a way to give it back. In any case, I know it is not my money and I’m not going to keep it.”
That is exactly how Dyer is reckless. He sends confused message on morality because he mixes it with self-centered childishness like the universe will answer your wishes.
What I loved from JQP’s post:
“4. The individual who found the $400 dollars and kept it. Actually, if he had listened to Dyer’s message he would have returned the money not keep it. That kind of anecdote shows a misunderstanding of what Dyer is aiming at with his manifestation. He says in one book, “Will you win the lottery? No! But you’ll feel like you did.†It is not about acquiring a wade of cash. Keeping the $400 was not the moral action.
Food for thought.”
Thank goodness for copying and pasting.
Gosh I wish I time for at least one more long winded post.
DANG!
Short version: I have no family members who are scientists who believe that science knows everything. They consider it a MODE of learning -an M.O. 🙂
I also have no family members who are scientists (accept a brother in law for a split second) – who discounts any and all “wisdom literature” that has been around for thousands of years.
(However, most scientists/people I know distinguish between the above mentioned wisdom literature, and the ‘knocking on wood’ variety – and so I don’t worry so much about people getting it all confused as often as you do.)
Anyway my friend, this seems to be more pertinent between you and I on this blog than for anyone else who is reading or writin’ on it.
Thought you made some gorgeous points about science, the past, and present in above post.
Gave me a wonder surge :).
Man this short version was LONG.
The bartender is cutting me off now. (For the literalists, that was a joke.)
The DB Responds
Earlier, some folks asked the great DB behind the curtain for some details on applied quantum computing. Well, he responded but in his normal science blog. It’s written for the layman is a great read:
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2007/11/learn_quantum_theory_in_ten_mi.php
===================================================
Now, I don’t want to spark questions about me being DB again just because we argue from the same side, have something to do with computers, and because I’m putting up his link here. For the record, I did commercial computer architecting (operating systems), and DB does academic research on a completely new field of computer architecture. (He gets to play with the cool stuff, basically.) I know next to nothing about quantum computers.
Dr. Drain Dryer has really got to work on controlling that right-side lip lick habit of his. It’s so entertaining to watch him lick himself that it’s hard to listen to him.
Hello, unlike jqp, I have little time to converse with you all. But I do enjoy the little time I have here. Ironically, when I talk to someone outside my faith constructively it actually deepens my belief. Not because I think I’m right, but because when you pose these questions to me, I actually spend my free time searching for the answer. I am still searching for the answer to “why God would annhilate the gay community of sodom but let Lot have incest with his daughters.”
I obviously find incest repulsive and have gay friends. So this doesnt sit well with me and am hoping for some enlightenment.
However, I still believe Jesus Christ is more than just an amazing human being.
again I am being cut short.
I havent read anything about Dr. Dyer. Saw him once on wttw. One only has to look at his actions to know if what he is peddling is b.s. or not.
i.e. 2 or 3 divorces.
“I don’t think it is very scientific or rational to deny/disclaim that which can’t be measured or understood fully… yet. (Otherwise, why not write ‘The End’ on the big book of scientific knowledge now?)”
You’re missing the point. Science does not claim to have all the answers. It is its opponents that make that claim against it. What is being said is that the spiritual speculation has no basis on which to be claimed as undiscovered territory. None.
Look at this way: Did any of the early superstitions even come close to understanding our universe? Were the ones who originally thought knocking on wood (trees), because they thought that spirits lived on tree tops, ahead of scientific discovery? No. They were off. Way off. The very things that science wound up discovering could not have been expected by anyone. In the 20th century, it turned out that the universe didn’t work like anyone could have fathomed. And what is yet to be discovered by scientific inquiry you most likely cannot fathom today. (Neither can I.) The ancient Sumarians had no idea that a little point of light they were tracking was this monstrously huge spray of dust we now call crab nebula.
So, no one says science knows it all. What is said, is that the new age mystics are no better than the ancient Sumarians. What is around the corner is terms of discovering the mechanics of our universe is probably nowhere near how you and I think it works. It is not only unknown, but unfathomable to us. And the “spirit world” concept that really is a very old cultural meme (look it up on Google, Metallicajoe) passed down through time and is nothing more than a hazy reflection of earth life. It does not embrace any modern knowledge. It is likely to go down with knocking on wood.
“It’s so entertaining to watch him lick himself that it’s hard to listen to him.”
Ha! LOL! Well, you know what they say. If you could do it too, you’d probably never leave the house.
“Ironically, when I talk to someone outside my faith constructively it actually deepens my belief.”
That’s fine. There’s no way I can think the way you do (I just cannot see the bible but a collection of writings from superstitious men during superstitious times), but that does not mean I do not respect your belief. My questions are sincere. But I cannot respect the concept of the Christian-Judeo-Islamic vengeful god. I would rather rot in hell than worship anything destroys life. But that’s just me.
Andrew –
The answer is simple – god would not destroy gays thats just ridiculous and ill have to agree with jqp when he says he would never worship a vengeful god – a god that uses violence to solve his problems is just silly and that is the main reason why people choose not to believe in god all together cuz of the evil reputation the bible gives.
WE ARE ALL ONE – we are all connected – there is an energy of the whole that runs through everything which i call god – there are low energys which make up things that we can see and touch and there are high energys like thoughts that are non local meaning they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. And you cannot kill thoughts. Now while our physical bodies change by the minute i believe there is a part of us that never changes and that part of us is nonlocal as well and when we die, i believe there is a part of us that still transcends.
On a different note, i think Dyers main message is saying if you want more in your life then you must give to others, but the hard part is you must not expect anything in return.
Anyway – We are all one – God is all loving does not judge nor punish
JQP – just wondering what are your thoughts on the death penalty?
I will go first –
We kill people for killing people – Now to me thats so stupid its laughable. What are we thinking? How could more violence possibly make it better. Its cleary not working. I think maybe we all need to try and look at the root of the problem which is why we act the way we do and what can we do to change it for the better. In a smarter more experienced world, we would not be killing each other at all, instead we would be sharing everything throughout. Now religions that teach of a vengeful punishing god are not helping this problem one bit. Religions, have for thousands of years, have been dragging at our behavior growth. And our technology growth has been growing much faster. We are like monkeys with cellphones.
Anyways to a logical person i would think it would be obvious that violence can not end violence. Its like the united states going into iraq and trying to kill a religion with guns. Its impossible and there is no winner. But please tell me what YOU think. Thank you and good night!
“just wondering what are your thoughts on the death penalty”
I don’t think it works as a deterrent. It’s been shown many times that crime ebbs and flows regardless of capital punishment laws. This is because typically murder is a crime of passion and no one thinks at the time, “I could get the chair if I do this.” They’re angry and lash out without thinking about legal consequences. So, I believe that is largely why it fails to deter.
But I have to say that the unusually heinous crimes I believe do merit it (i.e. I don’t pity the Ed Gein’s of the world), but I don’t think it stops them.
Now, my brother is a deputy, and at the Lost Hills station, which I believe is near HAGD (I think she’s almost our neighbor; we live in Westlake Village. And the public knows that station as the one where James Mee works–the guy who arrested Mel Gibson. In any case, anyone who lives a cop’s live, even if Malibu is on their patrol, has a completely different perspective. And as a family member you come to respect their position and see it to some degree. But politically, I’m pretty much center-left until you start talking business and capitalism, then I veer center-right. (I never go very far right, though.)
“And you cannot kill thoughts.”
Well, there are documentaries that show people awake during brain surgery (they’re skulls are open) and they apply millivolts of electricity and, indeed, create new thoughts. The patient will say, when a small wire is touched to the brain, “it tastes like a ham sandwich.” Or “I hear a band playing in the next room.” And so on. Various places consistently produce the same various thoughts in the patient. (That is how they mapped out brain functions at one time.)
Therefore, it follows that the thoughts can be short circuited, too. That is, a neural network can be short circuited and the thoughts it once produced cease. The thought is killed outright.
There is a neurological disorder in stroke patients, which I believe is called music agnosia, if I remember correctly. In any case, the condition is that they can no longer recognize songs–not music but songs. (Bear with me.) I bring this up because often when I am talking to someone who tends to believe that thoughts originate someone beyond the brain (which you’re implying), they also believe that the experience of music is also a function of something metaphysical. But this disorder shows something extraordinary. The brain buffers approximately 12 notes at a time. (Funny, but the western scale has 12 notes.) Music is phrased as “tension and release.” That is, as each successive chord and/or note progression builds the brain temporarily associates it with the last chord and/or note. So, if I play a G chord then you just experience a G chord. But if I play a C chord just before I play the G chord, you experience something different. (Up to 12 notes and then you start to lose the connection.) This creates a sensation of tension.
Take the 3 famous chords of Louie, Louie. At the end of the measure, you feel like the chord needs to resolve itself. If you play, then play the chords C, F and G (or any I, IV, V chord progression) then that G chord makes you “feel” like it needs to go back to the C chord because C is where it started. The G is the tension, and the successive C is the release.
People who suffer from music agnosia lose this buffering ability–the ability to feel tension and release. Therefore, each successive chord and/or note is independent and discreet and has no connection to the last chord/note. To them, each note stands on its own and collectively the notes do not comprise any sensation of a song. Thus, they can no longer recognize songs–but they hear pitch, can tap out rhythms, and still hear the music. The music but not the song!
Therefore, it is pretty conclusive that the sensation of music (which I’m personally very, very sensitive to) is a function of brain buffering, not something metaphysical. It can be shown that songs can be completely formed in the brain.
Additionally, so much of one’s identity is simply their memory. Take away the memory, as strokes can do, and they lose their identity. There is out-and-out cause and effect with the physical brain and thoughts.
JQP,
dear one :),
let’s skip the geographic references if possible.
I know you didn’t mean anything by it (sort of friendly acutally). But whether what you wrote is right or wrong, I’d rather be the one to reveal any such info (boundaries).
Thanks compadre.
(And just so everyone knows, even I get bored reading my posts – so when I don’t “add” info to what is being put out there – from here on out, remember, it doesn’t mean that I think there isn’t additional/pertinent info to add… just trusting that the convo will be much more interesting with more varied voices.)
The all loving god
The Indo-Eurpoeans created the vengeful deity concept for a reason: to explain the world’s indifference to life. Every culture’s religion has a concept of evil spirits to explain the hostility of nature. The all loving god is now coming into favor because we have tamed so much of that hostility in our immediate environment. (By we, I mean specifically western civilization. You won’t find the all-loving god concept in the remote parts of the world where conditions are the most harsh.)
How can you deny the indifference of the world? Natural disasters, meteorites, red dwarfs in the milky way (a real possibility that one will fry us one day), diseases, etc. Nature in its raw state is neither kind nor coddling. It is out-and-out dangerous. (Spend a night in the Congo by yourself sometime.)
How can an all loving god allow that to be your world? Would you create such an environment for your children? Would you still believe if you never knew a civilized world built by humans?
All life is connected
Are you really spiritually connected to the bubonic plague virus? Or to a dust mite? Or to paramecium? Do you feel a spiritual connection with the enzymes now crawling on your eyelashes? Most likely, you didn’t even know they were there.
“I obviously find incest repulsive and have gay friends. So this doesnt sit well with me and am hoping for some enlightenment.”
Well, Christanity has taken a decided postion on this. This is the problem of dogma; the writers come from a different time and didn’t really think things through. (If they’re wrong about that, can’t they be wrong about a lot of other things?)
There’s really no avoiding it for the ones who need to have something beyond our life; you have to roll your own if you want to avoid some of the immoral (oh, the irony) positions strict ideology puts you in.
Then, of course, you’re making it up as you go.
I personally think morality is simple. For it cannot be moral if it is done for salvation, fear of God, to please a deity, or any other reason. That is because morality becomes the means to an end and is, thus, an oxymoron. Morality (I like the word ethically better myself) must be the end in order for it to be true. It must be its own reward. And all it really is at the end of the day is helping out others where they need help. End of story. No rituals, no asking the sky, no wishing, no expecting justice and rewards in the end, no thank yous–no expectations. Just take action.
I’d rather be the one to reveal any such info
You did that, not me. I’m not sure why after you invited everyone over you suddenly became paranoid. But, okay. Not a problem. I mean, it’s only narrowed down to about 3 million people. (I defy anyone to locate where I am exactly.)
Hey, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings JQP.
I LIKE knowing we MAY be neighbors.
And – I know you are a better reader than what you just expressed about my take on manifesting. I’m not a black and white thinker about any topic.
One of my earliest posts was about my take on manifesting. For me, the term manifesting means simply – to bring into being. One can bring a shift in consciousness into being – as Ghandi and Mendella did (previous post). Or, for me, when I look at anything that is man-made: whether it is a building, a blog, a movie, or an airplane – I simply see it as something that began as an idea -something non-material. But something that became material through MAN’s/WOMAN’s efforts.
(Once flew thousands of miles in a tiny one engine plane – with a small hole in the door that I could cover and uncover with my finger. Felt pretty clear while up in the air that while my mind told me that I was in some external physical situation, it ALSO told me that I was in that situation purely because of a lot of people’s thoughts and hard work. Sort of like flying in a thought machine :).
Okay, JQP, don’t take any of the rest of this personally (unless it makes you feel personally good 🙂 …………
I’m sorry, HAGD, but I don’t get you at all. What you take seriously absolutely mystifies me. I remember when you thought I might be causing legal slander to Wayne Dyer because I typed it on the Internet. LOL! It’s just laughable! I’m sorry, but it is. Do honestly think someone is going to hunt you down from your alias? Do you think anyone cares that much? In any case, I will respect your wishes.
Hi Everyone.
Bear with me if you can.
With Thanksgiving barely behind us, and the holidays (for me) approaching, I’d like to leave a better post than my last – and perhaps greet, or check in on everybody sometime in the New Year…
2008.
Much of humanity is thrashing and hurting; however, sometimes the darkest times bring us the greatest opportunities. And a New Year, a soon to be new US president, new understandings, new bridges – could bring us endless possibilities to unite.
I’m going to separate this post so that it doesn’t appear as ‘long-winded’… 🙂
In terms of the topics on this blog – I think they are fun when they are talked about creatively, and with a certain understanding (that I wished all of us shared). I must admit however, that while those topics may be jumping off points, the more substantial messages that give them context and meaning are for me much more important.
JQP often mentions the sense that he feels some of us take for granted (or are even unaware of) the contributions that the field of science has made – when we/someone posts. I actually adore science – even if I haven’t expressed it clearly (I’m often responding more personally to a post with a link dismissing something or other – as opposed to addressing my wider view of science).
I would like to write a few things however about what I do believe the wisdom of the ages has brought to the table as well.
I think, when given a realistic context for what is possible (in terms of dating human events that occurred thousands of years ago) that we can still find extremely significant contributions which philosophy, and, inspired spiritual teachings, have contributed to our understanding of healthy, loving, responsible, living.
I am not a scholar in theology, nor philosophy – and so, I speak from only basic knowledge and education/information. However, I think one of the most important things to consider when assessing the value of “spiritual teachings” – is to look at how those teachings encouraged the evolution of the society at that time.
For example: it’s easy to assume that there was always a judicial system. But in many nomadic societies, there was no cohesive judicial system. Thus, when Moses (or potentially others before him) declared the ten commandments as moral guidance (I wouldn’t get too worried here about details ie; sort of difficult to know exactly when he was born etc. due to the factual nature of the world and communication at that time) – those
commandments in many ways provided guidance/an unofficial judicial system. Stealing (things/people/wives/slaves), killing, pirating, etc. were often common occurrences. Often, small, poorly-knit societies had to decide how to resolve grave matters independently. Thus, the tenant ‘thou shalt not kill,’ – reiterated over the centuries, is really quite meaningful. Even the statement “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth :)” is significant – in that, it was actually a guideline that implied not necessarily – vengeance, but fairness. A simple system for having a consequence fit a crime. “Don’t stone someone to death because they stole some bread,” for example. What may seem harsh now, or basic, was potentially neither at the time that it was expressed.
When you look at different centuries, and the religious/or spiritual leaders that became identified with those eras, perhaps try to assess what the individual teachings offered at that time that lead to an increasingly civilized society.
Many of these significant contributions included:
increased understanding of current morality
drive toward becoming more just
a focus upon simplicity and truth
an understanding of the importance of forgiveness and gentleness due to an increased value and understanding of peace
an ever-increasing respect for life and for one’s fellow man
an increasingly important emphasis on the equality of all –
regardless of sex, heritage, or the color of one’s skin.
Of course one can say that there have been religious wars since there have been religions.
However, it may be more accurate to say that there have been humans warring since there have been humans.
That war/cruelty/abuse exists because human beings war over many things (resources, greed, etc) – and religion is simply one of the casualties of this quality. Not the cause.
It can be challenging at times to separate the core spiritual teachings (that much
of our own society has benefited from), from the interpretations, additional writings, and extraneous material (and superstitions and hoopla) that hundreds of years of well-meaning “talking heads” 🙂 have created (some of which for me have been extremely helpful – but some of which has definitely seemed to obscure the elemental points.)
But I think each one of us is capable of independently investigating situations and truth.
There are many resources out there available to do so.
One can always go to a university and study philosophy or theology.
Or, a more unique resource: even if you are not aware of the B’hai faith – it is one potential avenue that offers quite a bit of information regarding spiritual teachers – within the context of their cultural environment. Simply put, this faith has done a lot of leg-work (highly educated) in understanding the cultural climates, societal mores, and the impacts that specific teachers and philosophers had in guiding and/or re-directing societies at different times.
If you do believe in God (like so many of the individuals who have posted here), know that there are many resources available to help you assimilate information, and unite it in a more coherent fashion. (If that is what you’re seeking.)
(A poster recently worried about a biblical story that seemed to be causing him pain. I only wish to offer this individual – and others like him/her – OPTIONS for sorting what may be the significant from the lesser significant issues… so as to find more peace.)
And for those for whom these issues are not currently issues – well, I take the Wayne Dyer approach (not sure if this is actually the Wayne Dyer approach – but JQP had it in one of his posts, so… 🙂 :
Whether Dyer believes this or not, I do – I don’t think one needs to chase after things that aren’t important to them right now. I do have a deep trust that growth itself is a natural process. And I also think that as individual as we all are – that we do need to connect the dots in the ways that make sense for us – so that our own individual journey and understanding is just that – a journey that leads to increased personal understanding.
NOW, for the fun stuff…
there may be numerous scientific studies already using what I referred to as ‘right brain methodology.’ Never underestimate scientists and their delicious desire to discover and uncover…!
However, since I haven’t done research on this – here is a simple example of what I meant.
If one wanted to study people who had psychic experiences – for me, the brain storming jumping off point would be – to study it in its natural environment first and foremost.
If we want to study something that our fellow man has been talking about (many quite humbly) for centuries – it would might work better if the study approached the topic in it’s own habitat. 🙂
What if a study could place an electronic device that one could access while in the shower – when one felt in the mood? What if one could carry a device with them over a long period of time, and only utilize it when one actually FELT what might be called a psychic flash? I don’t know… but I’m guessing there are many ways to respectfully study this area – that allow individuals a greater sense of dignity – and provide more accurate outcomes.
I say this only because the standardized lab stereotype seems to be in direct opposition to my personal (limited) experiences with this topic.
(And although JQP made a comment quite a while back about me falling for psychic frauds – I don’t believe I’ve ever commented about anyone else’s psychic experiences. Only my own interesting experiences in this area. However, I do think that I’d probably rate pretty low on the scale of what would be called ‘psychic ability’.)
Now why did I decide to write all of this tonight?
Because I’d really like to let this blog roll a long without me for quite a while.
I have a lot of hope for this entire world in 2008.
Maybe we can all find ways of unifying thoughts, and joining forces.
What better time than in this upcoming year?
So.
I have a lot of work to do.
I really want to do my work, live my life, and enjoy the upcoming holidays
(I’ll be thinking about all of you by the way 😉
And I’m sure I’ll want to check in on everyone sometime in the New Year.
JQP, I loved reading your post about music by the way.
I really think you’re supposed to offer the world a bigger gift with that talent of your’s.
I also loved the way you handled the recent licking comment. We are all in one boat.
And it seems so much better to extend everyone some class and grace and HUMOR,
even when we disagree… or don’t understand each other… yet.
Well.
You and I are firmly in one camp together: the political :). Be a good fearless leader on this site, and provide a microcosm (that counter-acts the global political macrocosm) that reflects the values you articulate so well. It’s only rational and moral to be tolerant, respectful, and empathetic… of course 🙂
Everyone, have a wonderful next couple of months.
And have a wonderful holiday – in whatever way that means for you.
See y’all in 2008?!
And just in case JQP got way too much tlc in the above posts :),
special good wishes to my Hana girl…
to DB,
and to Dr. Wayne Dyer too. (!)
wait, wait wait. I see I missed an opportunity, HAGD.
Why not manifest an invisible shield? After all, I believe you are among those who believe in magic and a guiding universe. Isn’t this a good time to employ it? Would that not make a very convincing case for your point of view?
That war/cruelty/abuse exists because human beings war over many things (resources, greed, etc) – and religion is simply one of the casualties of this quality. Not the cause.
Not true. Many, many wars were fought to convert the other side. The crusades, the Battle of Salmis, the Persian Wars, were all fought to spread religion. So, relgion *was* the cause.
I forgot to mention the most obvious wars of religion: the current Muslim wars.
Religious conversion has been an underlying motive is many wars. In fact, greed and territority are many times the means to an end–which is widespread conversion of faith; hearts and minds, as they say. It is true that sometimes religion was the means to acquire wealth, as with Elizibeth the first. But converting worldview (including democratizing other nations) is often the ultimate goal. But your post, HAGD, shows almost no understanding of the history of war and religion. To think religion is innocently standing on the sidelines while Muslims were slaughtered during the Crusades (which I think accounts for 12 wars, even though many Crusades were not effective and were side tracked) shows you do not have any familiarity with the subject.
The purpose of Al Qaeda, as stated many times in their videos, is to establish a new Caliphate throughout the Muslim world. That is what they’re fighting about and feel that Israel and the West interfere with that goal. Thus, their driving motive is religious conversion–but of Muslims, which is often overlooked.
JPQ, I thought your last post, and the one about helping others not-as-means-to-an-end were deep and thought provoking.
I tend to think it`s true that wars are caused by thwarted spiritual motives (?) but I don`t understand that. Deepak Chopra has things to say about that, but I forget the content. (Don`t think he`s a “con-man” `cause he`s terrific. I`m not even sure what a “con-man” means).
Thanks for the link, will check it out.
Dear HuGged (hope you don`t mind we`re affectionately playing with your “name”): Have a good time and Happy Holidays if “we” “don`t see you” till then. Good luck saving the world.
PS: JPQ, the other link, DB’s, about applied quantum theory, I did check it, but failed (“unavailable”) . Is it Applied Quantum Theory to Computer Science? That would be, in understatment, above me. It took me months to discover how to get to the end of that blog without scrolling down for ages).
Sorry the link didn’t work, Hana. It’s not computer science, it is general QM and how DB uses it in computers. He uses turkey’s and rubber ducks as a guide. Rather than reposting another failed link, you can get there this way:
1. go to the top of this blog, click the “Blogs” tab
2. in there you will see a link to the new ScienceBlogs site. Click there
3. scroll down until you see “Learn Quantum Mechanics in Ten Minutes”.
I`m not even sure what a “con-man†means
Confidence man. One who falsely gains your confidence in order to take your money. If Deepak is true to word and it is not about money, why did he sue–and lose–for $35 million dollars (I incorrectly said 36 before)? That is a lot of money. In fact, Dyer broke his partnership with Deepak just after that lawsuit (which was in many magazines). Chopra sues for a lot of money and then says this about it:
“Chopra, 53, hit the Weekly Standard with a $35 million lawsuit, referring to it as “an act of love” meant to lift the magazine to “a higher state of awareness.”
Come on, people! Really? He’s a liar. And Uri Geller is a known many-time-exposed fraud and he teams up with him. So, the point is that he is always litigating for money, he drives an S500 Mercedes (which is a six figure car), and lives in a palace and is preaching a non-materialist message to everyone else! Just like Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts, Jr., etc. They all con people out of their money playing on the public’s naive willingness to buy into their hypocritical message: “do as I say, not as I do!” (You can find all this data on the web.) On the other hand, Dyer recently sold all his material possessions including awards.
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/03/07/chopra/index.html
HAGD, I read your butterfly poem in…that other place. I would say that painting a heart-warming picture, as you did, around a butterfly is pretty natural because they are non-threatening to humans. I realize your motive was not answer a writing challenge, but to showcase some of the beauty in nature as a metaphor for your own transformation. And that it did.
But the backdrop of your poem was also that there is beauty if you look hard enough. Okay. Sorry, but I cannot let that go because I don’t believe there is beauty everywhere. Some things are, some things are not. So, if indeed there is beauty in all life if we look hard enough, please write a similar poem for necrotizing fasciitis, which is a life form certainly hiding its beauty waiting to be unleashed. If you want to know what it is, look here:
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/necrotizing-fasciitis-flesh-eating-bacteria-topic-overview
==============================================================
If you can show the spiritual connection to that life form and its inherent beauty, then I will concede that I was wrong and really everything in nature is wonderful but I just couldn’t see it.
A Little Deepak Wisdom
If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules. On the other hand, if you have sad thoughts, and angry thoughts, and hostile thoughts, then you make those molecules which may depress the immune system and make you more susceptible to disease.
================================================
And we can fly! Wheeee!
Chopra’s book Return of the Reishi promotes the idea that meditators can levitate. Chapter 13 describes his personal experience with “lifting off,” which he calls “the first threshold in yogic flying”:
As the meditator begins to practice, he lays down a pattern of repetition in which the body more and more begins to understand what the mind wants. In scientific parlance this is called behavioral conditioning. In common language, he is simply acquiring a habit. Mundane as it sounds, flying is simply a habit. Over time, the body stops shaking and, unexpectedly, while doing nothing more than the same practice he has done in the past, the person accomplishes the result. His body lifts up and goes forward.
================================================
I will give $1000 to anyone’s charity who can demonstrate this to me personally.
There is many substitutions for faith but there is none for God.
HAPPINESS comes from outside conditions and depending on those conditions one can tell if another is happy or not.
JOY comes from an unsuspected resource within, God if you may – It thrills my heart that talk is just another substitution for what is already known whether one understands or not.
We are people who have everything we need in front of us
We just don’t know what we want
Some people want to live, others just live to want
We all make a mistake here an there and
if you worry about it you just made two.
Dyer has highjacked terms (like energy an consciousness) to elevate his ideology (not philosophy) of selfishness. It is pure navel gazing that omits others and sets a persons focus only on their own (more than abundant) desires and wants.
I am amazed at the people this false teacher has
spell bound and believing in his hog-wash about giving up everything and owns a home in hawaii ?
And where else and what else, how much of that old rotten cash has he accumulated with his books
and seminars, cds etc. He is teaching new age and
tao and re-incarnation and all kinds of gobbly-gook, he says you came from no where and you are going to no where, heard that tonight flipping channels, kinda confusing I would think, doing handrolls, I guess that makes what he is saying
authentic and true right ? Well, better not die
believing and embracing his theology of life and he himself had better know Jesus Christ in the full pardon of his sins, we are going to live forever somewhere, heaven or hell and our goodness
certainly don’t please God or he would not have
sent his son to die for our sins, we were born totally depraved, lost and undone, without God or his Son, better read the bible[KJV1611] not just any book they call a bible, but the textus-receptus[original text] not a revision or regurgitation of another human being, I stake my
eternity on what I have said, and peace ? Yes I have peace that flows like a river !
Hello Friends,
Sorry to have taken so long in getting back to those who have responded and/or made references to my post. Not that I am any busier than anyone else I was just wandering about on some astral plane of existence with the good Dr. Dyer. Bones had more wisdom in his communicator than that Box of Hammers Dyer does in his entire left or right brain combined. How ’bout them semantics. You miss a few days here (on this blog), and there’s a new antibiotic curing the world’s diseases. Dis-Eases. Please excuse the rambling. I think I’m caught in an episode of the Twilight Zone wherein a group of people who think they’re so smart (I’m including myself here so no one get their undies in a bunch)are actually in Ken Kesey’s mental ward under the influence of Nurse Ratched’s Mind F- – -.
Dearest Kate. Who says I need proof to call Dr. Dyer a fraud? But anyway my belief that Dyer is a fraud, because I do like when people back up their statements, is based upon his premise or whatever you would like to call it that if one maintains a focused intention upon what one desires then one will obtain that goal. Reality just doesn’t work that way. I can already hear the Dyer pundits saying that it does, and how do I know that it doesn’t. The onus is on the claimant to back up his theory. A task which Dyer fails to accomplish. It is my opinion that Dyer knows damn well he can’t back up his theory (if that is what he calls it), and is making his statements in lieu of any facts, and I think he knows this. But whatever, that is my opinion. It’s just like the belief by some that they have had contact with aliens, ufo’s etc. (abductions, ghosts, mind reading, you get the picture), until I see some concrete proof on such matters than I can’t buy it. Thus, as far as I am concerned when Dyer makes his statements regarding the power of intention without any evidence to back them up, (i.e. scientific experimentaion resulting in proof positive outcomes)and on top of that is selling books to the public for outrageous amounts of money he is then, im my book, a fraud. And it don’t freakin matter (yeah I said “don’t”)that he isn’t holding a gun to anyone’s head, he’s a fraud of the moral type at the very least. Same as someone who sells you a garbage stock. If the company is crap, and the broker says it is great even though he didn’t force me to buy it, you know what, he is still a fraud. Dyer is selling garbage, a bill of goods worth nothing. If Doc D. went ahead, and demonstrated to me by, let’s say making a statement within my earshot that he intended to become the #1 urinal cake salesman in all the land, and then it happened within, hell I’ll even give him his whole toolbox life, and then after that made nine more statements of intentions based upon his focused thought(I’m assuming he’s going to think real hard on all this. I’m sure it doesn’t (see I know the right usage) work by having the intention in mind on becoming #1 urinal cake guy— he probably has to dwell on said “cakes”, and the action of transacting a “cake” sale with prospective buyers like the Red Lobster chain of restaurants or Willy down the block who really likes urinal cakes, rumor has it,— and then not really honing in on mental detail of the act) and, assuming all experimental controls are in effect, the large majority of those ten total statements of intention “came to be”, then at that point I would probably believe his claims were worth something. But I still ain’t buying the book. God forbid we should rely on the scientific method. Hey, maybe the good Dr. means well for all I know, in which case he is clueless to reality. Dr. Fraud. I love you all.
Man that was work. I hope I made sense. Dear Miss Have A… I hear what you are saying about your creative process. Very often I get into the zone, and just let the volts rip from synapse to synapse. But, and ironically I think this kind of relates to the notion of grounding one’s theories in time tested scientific procedure, after you’ve let the gates open and the river run free then, if one wants a story that flows well, one must build some organized trenches for those mindful/spiritually induced ideas to travel through. A creative writing professor once recommended to a class I was in a book called “Writing Down the Bones” by Natalie Goldberg. Sorry didn’t work for me. It was basically about free writing which I get, but I personally don’t find necessary or useful although I’m sure many writers do. I guess what I think is, a writer (fiction writer) is a creature who gets results by focusing chaos or,honing fury or well, Imagine you get it, and we are probably not so far apart after all. I don’t know if this is the place for this but if anyone is interested in exchanging writing pieces for mutual constructive criticism….I,don’t know it’s just a thought. I wouldn’t mind some feedback… I think…not really sure actually.
Hey JQ- LOve that lineage. Am I left brained in my approach? Good question that does not have an easy answer. I appreciate the inquiry. My answer is that I think I am a little bit of country and I’m a…oops I mean I’m a part left and part right. Better yet I’m a combo deal. There is no doubt in my mind that the greatest fiction ever written was executed via the use of those elemental tools we might say are holed upon within the hemisphere of the left brain. However, that is not to say that the wild tail of the scorpion did not whip its tail from its home over yonder, in the right brain. That wild free wheeling side of the mind. For me my best writing has come from the stuff that I labored over. Stuff that I have revised until my head was ready to, no I won’t use that dreaded cliche, until my head was ready to dismantle itself into its component parts rather abruptly. I think I have an imagination fit for a loony bin which is a good thing as far as my writing goes. Not that my writing is about “crazy” things, but rather that I’d like to think that it has no bounds. Good writing to me comes from the imagination, and yet can be about the most mundane thing in the world. The writing is the thing. The writing itself. John Gardner wrote that effective storytelling required one to refrain from “narrative interference”. The reader is drawn in, taken hold of and, essentially not let go. The reader when he is sucked in as such feels a sesation that, to paraphrase Nabokov, is enchanting. Simply put, how it works for me, the creation occurs in my mind(it all comes from the mind of course but hear me), and then that imagery must be translated to the whitness via the hand. That takes a certain control, a certain mastery of words,language. I can tell you that there are sentences, single sentences, that I have reworked more than one hundred times over until I finally had a sentence that I felt worked, that I was pleased with. Two people can write the same exact story, but the one who has mastered his tools comes as close to God, if I may, as a human can get. That’s my opinion. Thomas Mann said writing is like playing king. We write, we create “as if”. As if we were God. Hence the imagination. This is not the God of religion. As a man who is a writer I try to use what I have learned to write as good a story as I possibly can. Examining the work thoroughly. The process-until you can’t process anymore. It makes me nuts sometimes, but I do love it. Using these tools is left brainish one might say. Between Hemingway and Proust there are a million words, but both stunningly transformed imagination into story. The reader, if the writer has really done his job, usually doesn’t even see it, but behind that enchanting story are nuts bolts and “I” beams holding it up. I know when I’ve written my best stuff, there is usually a hammer lying around the site. When I’m done its just a matter of cleaning up my tools. That way the reader gets lost in a world, at least for a suspended moment in time, he thinks is real. Nabokov in his lectures on literture said it better than I can when he spoke on Dickens: “All we have to do when reading “Bleak House” is to relax and let our spines take over. Although we read with our minds the seat of artistic delight is between the shoulder blades. That little shiver behind is quite certainly the highest form of emtion that humanity has attained when evolving pure art and pure science. Let us worship the spine and its tingle. Let us be proud of our being vertebrates, for we are vertebrates tipped at the head with a divine flame. The brain only continues the spine: the wick really goes through the whole length of the candle. If we are not capable of enjoying that shiver, if we cannot enjoy literature, then let us give up the whole thing and concentrate on our comics, our videos, our books-of-the-week. But I think Dickens will prove stronger.”-Nabokov from Lectures on Literature
JHB
I can tell you that there are sentences, single sentences, that I have reworked more than one hundred times over until I finally had a sentence that I felt worked, that I was pleased with. Two people can write the same exact story, but the one who has mastered his tools…
That’s what I’m talking about when I say writing requires a lot of left minded work. I’m not talking about the story content. Everyone knows that typically has a lot of right-mindedness to it and is the creative part. It is getting the language down that best conveys that creativity that makes or breaks a writer. And sometimes becomes the creative part itself.
You can have the greatest imagination in the world, but if you cannot articulate it then how will anyone know?
Give me someone with great use of language, and they can take the most mundane, overused, unimaginative subject and make it interesting if not a masterpiece.
However, someone who can only regurgitate drival with the grammatical mastery of a ten year old on Ritalin can ruin the most interesting topics with a single word. That was the point I was trying to make all along. I was simply attempting to give useful advice.
Question: why do people who claim “what’s in your heart is right” (meaning your feeling of purpose, a sense of metaphysical identity, etc.) when it has such a poor, poor track record? HavAGr8Day wrote a poem about it and I was pondering why anyone would trust something that is wrong so often.
For example, the job your heart told you “was it” or the spouse it told you was “the one!” or, for Dyer, that “Deepak is such a great and honest guy?”
When you’re lost on the road, do you want the driver to go by “his heart” or read a map? Sometimes the heart is right, but more often than not it is wrong!
How many times in your life has your heart been wrong about something you felt was so right at the time? Why trust it then to the really big questions?
JQP
I agree. The funny thing is very often people think they are using their head when they are actually reacting on pure emotion. It is not always easy, I guess, to separate the head and the heart.
I believe Wayne Dyer has been listening to the name it and claim it ministers of positive confession regardless of the will of God for one’s
life, you can strive for greatness and wealth and
ask for miracles until you are blue in the face and if it is not the will of God” Thou shalt not have it ” Believe it !!!
…if it is not the will of God.
And how do you know the will of God? Because a book written by men you don’t know anything about except what has been passed down in the same manner as any tribal folklore–just like the Native Americans, just like the tribes of New Guinea. Passed through the generations. Why is your folklore any more correct than that of the tribes of the Congo?
Ever play the game of passing a sentence down the line of people only to have it come out wrong on the other end?
Could it be that what was passed on to you–which went through a few hundred thousand people–about the bible was wrong?
Thanks,JQP. Now I understand QM.
My pleasure, Hana.
Actually JohnQPublic it’s really quite incredible how the Bible we read today was passed along through the ages. You seem to have quite a bit of certainy about your position so I was wondering how you learned this about the Bible, and if you could elaborate. Thanks.
That most of what it says historically is unverifiable by other accounts and, moreover, it contradicts itself at almost every page. For example, what is says about Joseph’s father. Matthew says one thing, Luke says another. Or who was at the empty tomb? Matthew says, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Yet Mark and John say something else.
There never has been any evidence found that says the Jews were slaves in Egypt.
So on and so forth. These points are well documented. The gospels can’t even agree on Jesus’ last words. Jesus left no written documents and there were no first hand accounts of him. What was written about him was over 100 hundred years after his death.
The bible not only lacks supporting accounts (especially on Jesus’ life), but can’t keep the story straight itself. It is flawed because the men who wrote (and the emperor who edited) had political motives.
The question is why would you put so much faith into something that contradicts itself?
There are no contradictions in the KJV Bible, only “apparent” contradictions that go away after careful study.The four gospels are complementary, for example, different people were at the tomb at different times. About Egypt, when we find that some dynaties and Pharaohs overlapped, we find that the dates exactly match the Bible. The Bible has no errors, but some people do not fully understand the Bible.
Nonesense. Even Jesus’ birth year is inaccurate and is not known, much less the day.
KJV is in dispute, too. (KJV was the bible as a result of the Council of Nicea.)
How do you explain these?
SHOULD WE KILL?
Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.”
Leviticus 24:17 “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.”
vs.
Exodus 32:27 “Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor.”
I Samuel 6:19 ” . . . and the people lamented because the Lord hadsmitten many of the people with a great slaughter.”
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 “Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not;but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.”
Numbers 15:36 “And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”
Hosea 13:16 “they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall bedashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up.”
SHOULD WE TELL LIES?
Exodus 20:16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Proverbs 12:22 “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.”
vs.
I Kings 22:23 “The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of allthese thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.”
II Thessalonians 2:11 “And for this cause God shall send them strongdelusion, that they should believe a lie.”
SHOULD WE STEAL?
Exodus 20:15 “Thou shalt not steal.”
Leviticus 19:13 “Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither robhim.”
vs.
Exodus 3:22 “And ye shall spoil the Egyptians.” Exodus 12:35-36 “And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians.”
But, to my earlier point with another, do you then believe that incest, which went unpunsished by God, is less of a sin than homosexuality? Do you not think the God of the bible acts in such immoral ways as to rival Hitler?
Have you ever asked yourself why is God and Jesus depicted in the same image as those who claimed him? I mean, it’s not like the deity turned out to be an Asian woman, or Jesus an Aboriginol. It is the folklore of a particular culture that pictured their saviour in their own image and not someone else’s. They turned out to be white males, just like their authors. Fancy that. Why were they not images from humans who actually populated more of the earth at the time?
There are no accurate accounts of Jesus. No one knows what he looked like, when he was born, and, moreover, no first hand documents of his resurrection–over a hundred years after the supposed event before anything was written about such a tremendous event.
It all adds up to cultural folklore.
And how do you know the Qur’an is not the one true book? What proof is there that the Christian bible is more correct than the Qur’an?
Hey Gary, Why not cut and paste the rest of those wikipedia
articles?
For example the section on radiocarbon dating is also pretty interesting.
If all of these questions had final, definitive answers then there would be no room for faith.
If there were no room for faith, there would be no path to salvation.
The shroud of Turin is a perfect example. There are many theories about the image, but nothing conclusive. They found paint on it, but also blood. They can not verify the method in which the image was created, but some say they can replicate it. The cloth was carbon dated to the “wrong” time, but pollen found on it was traced to the Levant at the time of Christ. In the time that it was carbon dated to, they would not have realized that people were crucified with nails through the wrist, so if it was a fake the wounds would most likely have been in the palms of the hand. In addition, how would one explain the Roman coins on the eyelids if it were a counterfeit? How would they have known about this detail in the Middle Ages before the practice was discovered through historical investigation? The shroud is perfectly designed to be the focus for faith or disbelief…and guaranteed to be by your own (free will) choice.
Nothing worthwhile is easy. If it was so easy to understand God and His purpose without any effort or wonder or mystery, what would be the point of our even being here?
Oh…I forgot, JQP…that IS your point, isn’t it: that there is none?
Tragic way to live, right or wrong.
It’s only tragic from your perspective Gary. For those of us who’ve stopped drinking the distructive koolaid of Christianity, what with it’s old Testament wrathful God, it’s absolute declaration that it and it alone is the answer, it’s destructive force on huge numbers of people over the ages, including slaves (minor thing to forget to mention, Jesus, minor thing), homosexuals, and woman, it’s absolutely boring carrot sticks (I for one find my mortal life more interesting than an extremeley selfish “salvation.”), etc, etc.
Just because you can’t live your life fully without some crutch to justify your existance, doesn’t mean that there aren’t people like myself, and probably JohnQPublic, and many others who can live fullfilling, interesting, loving, and jubulient lives without your crutch.
But then again, your religion has presaged what to say to people like me. Call me the devil, etc. In the good old days your people would have burned me at the stake. Such a compassionate bunch.
“Oh…I forgot, JQP…that IS your point, isn’t it: that there is none?”
No. What I said is that we make up our own point. I have no need for a point (i.e., purpose to my life) external to myself. I have defined my own purposes, and I live those out. I am not preoccupied with trying the interpret a will external to myself because there are so many guides (religions and beliefs) to choose from.
So, obviously this is what everyone else is doing, too, since there is nothing near close to a consensus on God’s will. So, regardless that Dyer is saying we all have a gnawing feeling that is our purpose, or that the various religions each say they know what God intended for me, each is really just making it up, too–or simply accepting what is handed down in their culture without question.
One of my purposes is to call fraud or misrepresentation when I see it.
Earlier I offered a good amount of money for charity if anyone could personally demonstrate that they could levitate through meditation as Chopra had written. So, for all those claiming that some form of pyschokinesis or another exists, no one is taking me up on it?? This is an opportunity to not only demonstrate to all skeptics (because I will also film it and will have a professional magician on hand to examine it) what you believe is true, but to help a charitable cause in one fell swoop.
shroud of Turin
This didn’t even turn up until 1,300 years after Jesus. (It was found after the middle ages, by the way.)
Actually, there was a documentary that was pretty conclusive. When a person is illuminated by candles alone around the lying body, and an artist brushes their picture with only that illumination, that strange negative effect is perfectly replicated. Just like the crop circles (which the originators have documented how they made perfect circles), it was shown how it was done using only the materials of the 14th century. Case closed.
I think Einstein would tell Newton that no case is ever closed.
1. According to Christian legend, the Image of Edessa, (known to Orthodox Christians as the Mandylion, a Byzantine Greek word not applied in any other context), was a holy relic consisting of a square or rectangle of cloth upon which a miraculous image of the face of Jesus was imprinted — the first icon (“image”). According to a legend which developed over many centuries, this image was imprinted into a cloth during a visit of Jesus to the King.
The first record of the existence of a physical image was in the sixth century, in the ancient city of Edessa (now Urfa). The image was moved to Constantinople in the tenth Century. The cloth disappeared from Constantinople during the Crusades, reappearing as a relic in King Louis IX of France’s Sainte Chapelle in Paris. It finally disappeared in the French Revolution.
*
2. Possible history before the 14th century: The Image of Edessa
This 10th-century image shows Abgarus of Edessa displaying the Image of Edessa. The oblong cloth shown here is unusual for depictions of the image, leading some to suggest that the artist was influenced by seeing the Shroud.According to the Gospel of John (John 20:5-7), the Apostle Peter and the “beloved disciple” entered the sepulchre of Jesus, shortly after his resurrection — of which they were still unaware—and found the “linen clothes” that had wrapped his body and “the napkin, that was about his head.”
There are numerous reports of Jesus’ burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century.[4] However, none of these reports has been connected with certainty to the current cloth held in the Turin cathedral. Except for the Image of Edessa, none of the reports of these (up to 43) different “true shrouds” was known to mention an image of a body.
The Image of Edessa was reported to contain the image of the face of Christ (Jesus) and its existence is reported reliably since the sixth century. Some have suggested a connection between the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa.[citation needed] No legend connected with that image suggests that it contained the image of a beaten and bloody Jesus. It was said to be an image transferred by Jesus to the cloth in life. This image is generally described as depicting only the face of Jesus, not the entire body. Proponents of the theory that the Edessa image was actually the shroud, led by Ian Wilson, theorize that it was always folded in such a way as to show only the face.
So, how was something that…”didn’t even turn up until 1,300 years after Jesus…” get painted in the 900’s? (Probably the 500’s).
You will say it was a medieval forgery meant to depict what was in the painting. I would say: are you really sure?
A test of faith?
I have gone to great pains to keep anything personal about me out of this blog. Nobody knows if I am a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Edinburgh or a homeless guy in Pittsburgh that uses the free internet connection at the City Library.
I will say here, though, that as you now are I once was. I completely rejected the myths of all major religions. I was so arrogant about the folly of faith that I would not even debate it with someone. But, I assure you, when that miracle occurs, when your prayers are actually answered, when God finally reveals himself to you your doubt and disbelief will evaporate like morning dew on a dune in the Sahara.
Seriously, you believe it’s magical? Do you also believe in the tribal lore found in populations around the world and throughout history? Do you believe Thor is the god of wind? At what point do you draw the line of belief? Or do you believe in every myth ever told?
I can only believe what I interpret to have been real. What would your Papuans have though about HDTV?
Remember the ‘Cargo Cults’? Were the flying men magic or reality to them?
I do not understand why if you’re willing to accept the idea that an image can be burned magically into material without human activity, why do you not also accept the ancient Norse beliefs of various gods? What settles one in you mind as true, and the others as not true?
Gary, that is what interests me. Why believers in the supernatural accept their own arbitrary line of belief, but reject someone else’s who uses hard evidence as their line. I have yet to find anyone who believes in every magical claim every made because they’d wind up beliving in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, too. At some point they draw the line and say, “I don’t believe that.” Why don’t you believe that? Most likely, because you don’t think it’s possible! Thus, the crux of the matter.
If your criteria is not empirical evidence, and you’re open to anything, then why not Santa Claus, too? I can make up all kinds of reasons why you never catch him.
The comments about wonderment (which new agers think rational thinking ruins) and what spiritualits think is astounding. Really. Is how a negative looking image was burned into material anywhere near as astounding as what relativity uncovered? Could religion ever had predicated that is how our world really works? Are the findings of rational thinking far, far more interesting and thought provoking than any answer religion or spirituality has come up with? Adam and Eve, snakes, apples, old men pushing clouds, elves, fairies, magical tricky ribs, rising from the dead, mysterious arks carrying tablets that cause people to incinerate upon touch, humans created from clay, Medusa, Achilles, and all the other ideas created throughout the ages are boring, uninteresting, and childish compared to the fruits of rational thinking.
Religion has had its chance to run the world. It’s been the backbone of societal structure for thousands of years. It has failed to produce a compassionate, orderly world, as it promised—at least promised in certain parts!–and instead contributed greatly to natural strife. I will give Christianity this: it created a framework from which reason, secularism, and science could emerge, and which in turn started devouring it. And that is the quality of science that is so endearing to me. It’s willingness to devour its own belief system as new evidence emerges. It never settles for idle speculation and it welcomes skepticism with open arms. (Skepticism not speculcation!)
Those with mystic leanings will disagree because they cannot see their own mythologies as speculation—and want their ideas to be validated by reason and science! And science has no room for speculation. And since the faithful can’t get that reasoned validation, the use language like “belief†and “faith.†Because if they could show that their speculation to be true with reason, they would in a heartbeat. Nothing is more satisifying intellectually than when things agree with reason. Faith always has an uneasyiness to it, even for the faithful. That is the irony of the faithful. They say they will take ideas on faith alone, but are more than willing to spell out reasoned arguments why they are right. This is because the human animal cannot help but reason. It is natural and inescapable. If Wayne Dyer takes his ideas on faith alone and has little use for science and reasoning, he would not bring up scientific terms, or research, or write those screeds he publishes. He is attempting to validate his positions with reason–even when they contridict reason.
His books are nothing more that “linear†lines of reasoning. The bible, too, is a system of reasoning in that it constructs lines of thought of why you should think and act in particular ways. (It’s main reason is if you don’t, God will torture you for eternity. Can you image burning for over a quintillion, or octillion years, for behavior based on, say , just a mere eighty years of existence? Think there’s a human motivation behind such a notion?) Disjointed, speculative, and unverifiable reasoning? Absolutely. But these positions of “faith†are actually attempts to establish a chain of reason to convince you of a position. Reasoning is inescapable even for the faithful.
Christian reasoning:
Why do you believe in Christianity?
Because of Jesus’ ressurection.
Why do you believe that he ressurected?
Because the bible says so.
Why do you believe the bible is correct on this?
Because I believe the word of the gospels.
At this point the Christian stops the line of reasoning and really saying, “Because I believe it to be so and I do not need any reasoned position.”
If there were more reasoned arguments, say, “because the bible is consistent with X amount of non-religious accounts” or that “it was verified by such and such,” then the Christian would absoulutely use that data without hesitation!
The point: Christians use reasoning for their position so long as it is there, but only jump to “faith” when the reasoning chain runs out.
Never have you seen science want to be validated by theology. Let’s face it. Scientific reasoning really is the bottom line for any argument.
Conversely, religion and spiritual perspectives would love nothing more than to be validated by scientific reasoning.
Wikipedia ‘cut and paste’ reply to Dr. Bacon:
*
Radiocarbon dating – Calibration
The need for calibration
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations in the earth’s magnetosphere caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
The atmospheric 14C concentration may differ substantially from the concentration in local water reservoirs. Eroded from CaCO3 or organic deposits, old carbon may be easily assimilated and provide diluted 14C carbon into trophic chains.
*
If Science was not frequently incorrect in its conclusions then we wouldn’t be so proud of its “self-correcting” nature, would we?
Please also know that I am not defending the infallibility of the Bible or any other book. It just seems to me that those with such a strong belief in the validity of science would recognize how much we now take for granted that was not even conceived of in the past and so should not be so quick to disavow that which we do not yet conceive of.
“If Science was not frequently incorrect in its conclusions then we wouldn’t be so proud of its “self-correcting†nature, would we?”
Actually, can you name any system of inquriy that has a better track record on correctness? Do you think religion corrects itself when wrong?
How can you deny how much science has gotten right? The proof is in the technology all around you.
I am a 100% believer in Science. I have no argument with the reality of Einstein’s relativity, Bohr’s atom or Planck’s quanta. I believe in the possibility of organic evolution, exploding black holes, neutron stars, etc., etc. Maybe even M-Theory,
But, to answer your earlier inquiry, yes, I also believe in the Norse gods. Why? Because all the various mythologies of men are simply attempts to explain real phenomena that they perceived. The polytheists tried to explain what they saw: wind, animals, the moon and stars, sunrise, life, death. I don’t name it ‘Thor’, but I have heard thunder for myself. I don’t call it ‘Thunderbird’, but I have seen lightning for myself.
So, the question is not what we call a phenomenon but whether it is real or not. Why does every society on Earth believe in ghosts? Mass hallucination? Subconscious archetype? Pre-partum memories? Could it be that someday Science will define an as yet undefined extra-biological energy phenomenon?
You should read the great Mythologist Joseph Campbell. You will be happy to know that he analyzed the western monotheologies exactly the same way as the other cultural beliefs he examines. You will have your concerns about the importance of any one religion over the other validated. But you will also learn that there is a universal reason that gave rise to these beliefs in the first place: unexplained phenomena that needed explanation. Now we have Science. Good. But damn…we still have ghosts. Unless, of course, like the Christians you chastise, you simply disregard what doesn’t fit your paradigm. After all, you’ve never seen a ghost so obviously we have several billion other people whose perceptions are simply wrong.
All I’m saying is that you can’t prove a negative. Therefore, you can not disprove what you do not yet know exists.
You make some good points. But it does come down to this: what is lacking in this life that it is necessary to still have mythology? Once it was the only method of giving answers. But it is now obsolete. We no longer have to look to other-worldlyness in order to have fulfillment or explanation. We can have it here and now in this life.
What purpose does believing in things than cannot be proved serve anymore?
All I’m saying is that you can’t prove a negative. Therefore, you can not disprove what you do not yet know exists
So you believe that pink elephants rule the world, we are actually all just inside of a gigantic stomach of a dinosaur, aliens live inside of the earth, birds are really secretly angels, Big Bird is a real, atoms are really small universes, that you aren’t really alive? So far we don’t know whether these things exists, so I shouldn’t rule them out?
Don’t you think that the reason why there is so much common, um, history, of religion is, um, history? The commonality has a really really really simple explanation that ain’t got nothing to do with the supernatural.
Of course I never rule out compelte that all the mythology you talk about isn’t real. I just assign a subjective probability which is very very very small (much much worse than my winning the lottery, in my estimation) because I see all sorts of evidence that almost all religions are just making it up.
Several billion people have seen a ghost? I’d love to see that data. (Do you mean “believe in ghosts?” That’s quite different. People also believed that the stars were very near objects, because well, you could see them right there in the sky.)
Whoa…tough room.
What about documented instances of children with memories they can not have? You don’t believe in a soul and, therefore, reincarnation so it can only be one of two things: hundreds of purposeless non-profitable hoaxes or some kind of thought transference???
How about the secret Goverment studies in remote viewing? If there had been no statiscal confirmation, would they still be going on?
How about entanglement?
You guys seem to be saying that NOTHING you can’t currently measure or verify could exist.
“You guys seem to be saying that NOTHING you can’t currently measure or verify could exist.”
No, I’m saying that mystics, spiritualists and religion get it wrong. Sure there may be something beyond what we can sense, but this bunch of goofs who just make crap up are wrong. They have no systematic, rigorous method other than “I think so.” And what they claim, anyway, is not beyond our senses and can and should be verified. If you can see a ghost, it is not beyond your senses and, thus, can be verified. If you can move things with your mind, it is not beyond your senses and can be verified. Why haven’t any of these magical claims ever been demonstrated to scientists or skeptics? Every time they try they fail or have been proven a hoax. Yes, there have been thousands of documented hoaxs. There’s a lot.
If there are things beyond our senses, then by definition they cannot be discovered through our senses and predictive models is a better measurement. Certainly, it’s better than relying on just someone saying so.
But if you believe in Norse myths, why do you draw the line at the tooth fairy? Show me what you use to determine how one is true and the other not? How do you know what to believe and what not to??
Gary, I know you won’t answer that last question (which is the critical one) because you have no answer other than “I think so” or “I use gut feeling” or something to that affect. If you don’t use empirical evidence, reason, or your senses, then what do you have to determine these claims? Nothing other than you just think so. Is that good enough? Would you allow that to be used against you in a court of law?
It seems that this conversation is running around on some major tangents. I am a Christian, and not for any other reason than I think it seems to make the most sense. And yes, this includes the arguments made by science. Does being swallowed by a whale sound crazy? Yes. Does Jesus walking on water sound crazy? Yes. People living for hundreds of years, all the earth’s animals on one boat, the red sea splitting? Yes, yes, and yes. BUT, the astronomical probabilities and processes necessary for evolutionary theory to work seem to me to be far far crazier. If God does in fact exist, then the Biblical stories don’t seem all that far fetched, I mean, after all, it’s God we’re talking about here. But if God does not exist, it still doesn’t make it any more easy to believe in evolution. We are given two options. Either God exists and he created everything, or he doesn’t exist and it all started by accident. Given the complexity, beauty, and order within nature and the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence, it seems the one who turns to complete and utter Chance as being the father of the universe is embracing the weaker of the two explanations. A christian worldview takes these physical evidences and says “this must have come from something ordered, logical, complex, etc.” The end result is in congruence with the source. That doesn’t sound idiotic does it? However, the atheistic worldview looks at the physical world, and asserts that a very complex and intricate process erupted from disorder, and nothingness. Now, you can certainly believe that way. I’m just saying it doesn’t seem to be probable looking at the way the universe functions today. I don’t think it’s enough to smile and shake your head at the “simpleton” Christians and say that science has now given you all the answers. Or even better answers. But I don’t know, I’m no scientist.
“…evolutionary theory to work seem to me to be far far crazier.”
Evolution seems crazier than snakes talking to women? Wow.
Would you say the possibilities that something like entanglement is “astromonical” and just as crazy? QM and relativity has uncovered mechanisms in our world, which have been verified many times over many years, that the religious never could have predicted much less grasp. If you did not know better and I told you about the “twin paradox,” you would probably think that was equally as “astronomical.” But, it’s a fact and a proven one. The answers that are consistent with reality take a long, long time to formulate. You’re making a snap judgement. But then the religious go for the easy quick answers–they invent them.
WOW! After reading most of the postings my head hurts. Seems to me that Tony Robbins , Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav ( all of which i have invested time and money) have a similiar theme.
After reading Ayn Rand ( the Virtue of selfishness) and some Homer, I am so confused about everything. All I really have is free will.
What to believe? I believe I will have another beer and watch the hockey game.
regards, MR SIV.
Wow, I guess your right. Believing that snakes turned into things that could talk DOES make much more sense. I guess I am stupid. Your belief sounds much more plausible. (Given billions of years of course, I mean geez, anything can happen then) Or heck, he might have been a really evolved snake, kind of like the ones you believe we’ve become. I guess those things only sound plausible if they come from a science magazine instead of the Bible though. Man, those silly Christians!
Anyway, I’m talking about the law of probablity, and the use of the evidence around us. QM,relativity, and the twin paradox in no way weaken the idea that the universe was created by a supreme being. Surely you can see that the existance of such systems may suggest that very thing. However, such systems existing in a universe that came from nothing into more meaningless nothingness(like you and me) or atoms banging around, as Doug Wilson would say, seems more than a bit ridiculous.
even science and religion are just mere perception to which we have a choice to choose to use to see the world around us.
things become confusing when a new idea or concept comes to us and does not fit in our current perception.
through contemplation one may be able to find a breakthrough.
more often, when a person passes through a state of confusion they get clarity.
Sometimes, they fall apart to their emotions and become frustrated and give up, and cease to contemplate and begin to be govern by their habitual pattern on how to deal with frustration.
they can either go out *there* to find a way to release the emotion so that it is not kept inside.
maybe in a way they know if they kept emotion such as anger or frustration inside it will destroy them sooner or later.
there are certain things we know we just got to do, and we do it. sometimes we may not understand them.
most of which has got to do with things relating to our survival needs. (eat, sleep, etc.)
the feeling that ones view should be right is our own ego, ourself that we have come to know over the years. to ourselves, this is what is true.
Who is still alive (successfully stayed alive) would like to be told or agree that he had been living a lie or they way he had been living had been wrong?
each and everyone’s perception or what they see is their own truth, whether it is shared or not is irrelevant when it personal.
Yes, it is significant when it comes to achieving the same goal.
It is difficult to generalize things, but you can have principle as guideline.
Each circumstances are different, new perception are shaped or changed if we can *see* that a new circumstance we encounter is *different* in some way from what we have perceive before.
in a way, we all have to find our own *truth*
someone may tell you something with conviction on how it is like and even give u evidence of the result.
that in itself is questionable to his experience and whether he/she had been aware of other things around affecting his/her experience and understanding.
if we were to learn everything about life to the smallest atom, is that what you want to do with life?
to only start living after you figure it all out?
yea, we are not exactly given all the answer in life when we were born, we probably knew nuts about this world, and most of which are actually thought to us by someone who is already living in it.
at this moment in time, with what is around us, most of us learn through logical deduction and also looking at patterns, and also using our emotion to gauge and get *feels* for circumstances.
i suppose the one good solution or path we each can take is to use our common sense, and to take what make sense to us, rather than taking everything in as facts.
sometimes life experience and things happen to us so that we can see more possibility that we had never seen it before. yet some see it in their mind and have a feel for it without experiencing it and some how they make it come true.
whichever path we would like to try to *test* out is up to us. and how many times we want to try is up to us.
we can decide how we want to see it:
I will believe it only when i see it
or I will see it when i believe it
which ever works, if it works, great, if it doesnt then give up or try again.
“in a universe that came from nothing…”
Science never claimed that. That was a general population interpretation. Physicists have always said that the laws of physics simply do not apply at the point of singularity and, thus, has no comment.
Rather than weave imginary stories about it to fill the gap of knowledge, they simply say, “we don’t know at this point.”
I’ll take “I don’t know” to the invention of magical creatures any day. I have no need to invent myths in order to make my life significant. I do not need a god or a universal being to make my life significant. I do not need a promise of reward to act morally. I have no desire for any life beyond this one and no desire for eternal golden streets or 70 virgins. That things happen randomly in the universe (weather, meteorites, human freewill, etc.) is pretty obvious. If you believe that there is no randomness and everything happens for a purpose, then nature’s indifference and hostility to its inhabitants makes no sense. A being that creates and then plants little traps to destroy its creations makes no sense.
Why on earth would you worship a being that is hateful (i.e. wrathful), seeks vengence and destruction on its children, punishes in a way that makes the nazi human furnaces seem like a day in the park, and condemns its own creations for sexual identity? Is that your idea of morality?
70 virgins
That would mean the Islamic god condemns 70 female souls to eternal oppression for the whims of 1 male soul. But the Christian god is no less sexist. He made women second class citizens, too, and thus justified the beatings and mistreatment of women over the centuries.
You have such a nice god, Tim.
I’m not sure if you’re twisting my point for ghe sake of debate, or misunderstood it. So, I’ll clarify: I was not using the twin paradox to comment on design vs. randomness. I was using it to refute your argument that because something seems “astronomically” complex does not mean it is not true. The explanations of our world that agree with emperical observation turned out to be highly complex and the simple answers religion offers have never held up where science has uncovered the universe’s underpinnings. The big answers to the big questions will undoubtedly be complex and not explained by stolen ribs or eating apples.
My post got chopped. I’m repeating it so it is complete.
“Anyway, I’m talking about the law of probablity, and the use of the evidence around us. QM,relativity, and the twin paradox in no way weaken the idea that the universe was created by a supreme being.”
I’m not sure if you’re twisting my point for the sake of debate, or misunderstood it. So, I’ll clarify: I was not using the twin paradox to comment on design vs. randomness. I was using it to refute your argument that because something seems “astronomically†complex does not mean it is not true. The explanations of our world that agree with emperical observation turned out to be highly complex and the simple answers religion offers have never held up where science has uncovered the universe’s underpinnings. The big answers to the big questions will undoubtedly be complex and not explained by stolen ribs or eating apples.
“I guess I am stupid.”
I would never say that. I have no way of gauging either your education or intellect. I have never suggested that the religious lack intelligence. (Although, I did claim this about Wayne Dyer, because there are so many statements he made to back it.)
However, if you buy into the old testament god, worship him, I can only believe you do it to save your own skin (i.e. god-fearing) and that you have to be at least somewhat gullible to fall into that trap. And, honestly, I cannot understand how you would sleep at night after praying to a being that you believe will in turn fry a majority of humanity for eternity. You may claim that is god’s decision and not yours, but you’re going along with it nonetheless. I defy you to look into the eyes of a practicing Muslim and say, “I pray to my god that you will be punished in the most horrific way imaginable.” Is that what you wish for him?
My remark about the religious not grasping relativity and complex topics was a comment on the institution of religion. I was saying it relies so heavily and, moreover, unrelentingly on simple unproven answers that it had in no way the means in which to uncover the workings of our complex world. It abhors skepticism and in kills skeptics outright rather than make a virtue out of questioning authority. The church is amazingly defensive and will not admit mistakes. And as an institution will circle the wagons and protect its own pedophiles from the law because it simply cannot admit its wrong when it is clearly wrong.
The complexities of science was simply nowhere near its grasp. The religious continue to believe that the world is 6,000 years old (because a monk was really bad at math) and cannot let it go.
You cannot say the same about the institute of science. The ones attacking it as unrelentless are the ones actually seeking validation from it. They want science to say their mythology is true. So, their attack is completely from another perspective. Science does admit mistakes but–and this is the reason why it is trustworthy–is careful. It says that one opinion makes something so. That is critical to any trustworthiness. This is what infuriates so many self-proclaimed “lone Einsteins.” When they can’t get the validation of science they want, they say it is science that is wrong.
If every philosophy had the validation of scientific methods, none would attack it.
I may think you appear gullible and unquestioning, but not stupid.
Correction: It says that one opinion does not make something so.
“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
Eva on behalf of Mark Twain
Whoooooaa, Johnny! Slow down a bit here. You touched on quite a few different things that I would like to discuss. I’ll try to answer one post at a time.
I don’t know what other thought could rationally be entertained other than to say it came from nothing. I mean, seriously, how can something come from nothing? NOTHING?? I understand science doesn’t have much of an answer here, and that’s what gives me pause about the line of thought that follows concerning evolution. Is it really so irrational to believe that the universe was created rather than just came from nothing(or whatever it was that science can never identify)? At this point in the lifespan of the universe it would at least seem as credible as anything else.
I believe that at one point, somehow, someway, a snake communicated(or talked) with a woman. You believe this to be utterly ridiculous based on the fact that snakes don’t talk. Yet you would have no problem at all asserting that snakes, among other animals somehow developed from single celled organisms, transformed from species to species, developed two distinct sexes simultaneously, and began talking, creating languages, writing symphonies, etc. etc.
You really should drop this thing about the talking snake. And besides, and I know this won’t help any, but the Bible implies that is was a deceiving spirit that did the talking within the snake.
I don’t believe in God because I’m on some wearied soul journey of significance. I believe it because among the list of explanations, I think it makes the most sense. It’s the most probable.
Whether or not God is indifferent, wrathful, or contains a chewy gooey core of sunshine and rainbows makes no difference to the idea that he exists or not. All I’m trying to assert here is that I believe he does, and I believe it is not foolish of me to do so. Why I chose to worship the God that is revealed in the Christian scriptures is another argument.
I’m not Muslim, so someone else will have to speak on the subject of the 70 virgins. But your idea of the Christian God is quite incorrect. The Bible teaches that men and women are in complimentary roles with one another, not that one sex is better than the other. Men are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church and to honor and cherish them. This teaching is explicit to husbands and wives, but extends in a more general sense to all women. Throughout the peoples of the Scriptures, women were not always treated so well, but this is not because God regarded them as second class citizens. Jesus taught that we should love women as sisters and mothers, and Paul said our wives as our own bodies. And yes, thank you, I believe he is nice too.
Two points. Evolution does not merely seem astronomically complex and unlikely, but it without doubt, IS. If I was to tell you that I picked the correct number out of one quintillion numbers, you would be less likely to believe me than if I said I picked out of four. You may be even less likely to believe me if I told you I did it by accident. Now that wouldn’t make it any less true if, in fact, it was, but probably a lot more foolish of you to believe me given the odds. I’m simply saying that given the odds, creation maybe isn’t such a wacky alternative. Secondly, it makes sense that a complex being created a complex universe. It does not, however, make sense that a dull, lifeless, utterly simple nothingness (or whatever science would call it) created such breathtaking complexity. And complexity with beauty mind you.
Given my worldview that God created the universe, it wouldn’t be in the least bit gullible for me to be God-fearing. It would be gullible if my worldview was incorrect, but you must remember what I am presupposing in order for anything I say to make sense.
I pray to a God who ( based upon the testimony of Scripture now), is holy beyond what we could conceive of in our present state, hates injustice, and is patient with those that hate him without cause to such an extent that he is accused of being slack in defending his own honor. The thought of God punishing people is only abhorrible if you believe that they don’t deserve it, which I do. And for the record, I deserve it too. Very much so.
I would never, never, neeeeeever wish that anyone would fall under the wrath of God, but it is not my decision. I do however pray frequently that he would have mercy on the undeserving. And this of course includes myself.
Saying that God created the universe is not a simple answer. It’s an answer that explodes into a million more questions and demands answers as you are doing right now.
I don’t have the slightest problem with skepticism. I think it’s necessary and productive in the search for truth. No one should believe in something without any good solid reason. I think you’re making a very big generalization here about the Christian community. It’s unfortunate, but there are too many Christians that have tried to engage intelligent people such as yourself without any good ideas as to why they believe what they believe.
I am not catholic and the whole pedophile thing is disgusting and tragic. Anyone defending it or trying to sweep it under the rug is acting in contradiction to the faith they supposedly possess. The Bible speaks about exposing, and doing away with wickedness. This again is another generalization you are making. There are millions and millions of Christians out there. Please don’t lump us all together. Not all Christians believe the world is 6000 years old, that Jesus will Rapture the church as in the ridiculous Left Behind series, or that people can be “slain the spirit†or whatever craziness has overtaken a certain movement within our modern day evangelligoop.
Lastly, just because someone wears a lab coat and works with scientifiky stuff like numbers and plastic tubes doesn’t mean they are agenda free, completely honest, unable to be swayed by personal opinions, ideas, peer pressure, always willing to say that they were wrong, and fair in their analysis of data. There are consequences with ideas. Christians are not the only ones that have to fear this if they are wrong.
“Please don’t lump us all together.”
I don’t. As you know, it is sometimes necessary to use a very broad brush in order to make a point otherwise you wind up splitting all kinds of hairs and the point is lost in the mud–the lowest common denominator. I know many Christians who are well-meaning and really have the best of intentions. (Some are close family members of mine.) That is not lost on me. I do think, however, they’re not really paying attention to the theology they’ve adopted and its dogmatic consequences. I guess it’s a case of good intentions, but misguided actions–that is, they could actually move to higher moral ground by dropping the dogma.
I have a beef with organized religion and its historical injustices like inquisitions, crusades, slow roast burnings, flagellations, sawing live people in half because they didn’t believe, and even some of the torture devices used by ascetic monks on themselves. Not to mention the cruelty it encouraged against women and those of the Jewish faith. Even today many evangelicals believe recent middle eastern struggles are the presages of cataclysmic biblical events, which in turn is driving some foreign policy. (That is, the evangelical voters put in the war hawks that are aligned with their religious expectations.) Religion in political affairs is a dangerous mix for everyone. Ironically, Cardinal Richelieu was right to but the state before the church in order to keep out of unnecessary wars. Religious zealotry can turn back the progress history by centuries in one fell swoop. Therefore, I agree with Sam Harris that the end of faith needs to occur in order to further geopolitical stability.
But, no, I do not think everyone is a sinner. That to me is a really horrible and dangerous generalization. Actually, very, very few are “sinners†otherwise society would simply not work. The world is largely made up of well-meaning people reacting to circumstances they did not create. If you look at homicide rates per capita from around the Carolingian period to now, it has dropped about well over 5,000 percent. (Interestingly, this correlates with the decline of religious zeal and the rise of the age of science and reason.) If the world comprised mostly bad people, then society would not function as well as it does. It is not the heavy hand of law or the fear of God that makes most people behave, it is by choice driven from empathy. Let’s face it, if the majority of us broke the law and decided to become unruly there is no way law enforcement could stop us. As a collective bunch, we can pretty much do anything we want and not much can stop us. Yet, we don’t. Societal stability occurs largely because its inhabitants are cooperative, not sinners.
So, there is no way I can be convinced that the majority of the people of world, especially those innocent folks in the remote corners of the world who have no skin in this Euro-centric game at all, deserve eternal punishment. Each human innocently appears one day and for the most part tries to make their way through what is naturally (the natural state–even before man) hostile circumstances.
 just because someone wears a lab coat and works with scientifiky stuff like numbers and plastic tubes doesn’t mean they are agenda free, completely honest…â€
Agreed. In fact, this is a line of argument I thought for sure would be used in this forum from those critical of science. Perhaps it’s my age as the authors here seem to all be young (although Jodee isn’t far behind me!). But it was a staple argument in my day that communism (which was consistently confused with totalitarianism!) was the result of a godless society. It was held up by the religious right (an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one) as the poster child society if science had it’s way. Of course, I do not agree with that because it is hard to argue that capitalism is really all that consistent protestant values; it’s not hard to make an argument that capitalism is godless, too. In any case, I thought someone would point that out as the evil consequences of science, but times have changed and worldviews with it.
I liked Eva’s prayer. Funny, but that is exactly what I say when the Bruins play the Huskies.
“Quantum Physics Is At Work All Around You”
You can see Quantum Physics and the Law of Attraction working all around you. Don’t you know people who seem to live a charmed life? Why do such good things keep happening to them? It’s because of the Law of Attraction: they are attracting these good things with their good, higher level vibrations!”
Really? So, Donald Trump charmed life is from putting out good vibrations? And Martha Stuart? G.W. Bush?? So, historically all those robber barons of the 19th century lived their charmed lives from putting out good vibes? Mother Teresa said she lived in “agony” (her words) and did not live a charmed life by any means. Was she was putting out bad vibes? Or are you going to twist what “charmed life” means and say that those who live in near abject poverty but do good things are living “charmed” lives?
Anyone knows what that author meant: general prosperit, which strongly connotes financial. This does not hold up to reality. Those living the most charmed lives in our society are usually the most ambitious and greedy. You really have to have some thick rose colored glasses on to think the Bush family has it so good because of the goodwill they’ve put out rather than profiteering from oil.
John, re Bush family; no, they struggled for recognition – essential opposition to status quo…smile
Mother Theresa did not, by choice, “want to eat or drink more than one can reasonably consume”, she is/was a Mother Theresa after all – the others can, but not because they choose to, it is that they can not choose not to, greed.
they have a show called how to catch a predator. For those who have not seen it, dateline goes on chat sites and gets old guys to come visit underage girls to arrest them now me personally i do not see anything wrong with having sex with them as long as they are willing. when these guys are being questioned, the question will pop up frequently asking do you have a teenage daughter and how would you feel if an older would come and have sex with her? And the popular answer of i would be angry would always be said but still as long as she is willing then she is going to have sex whether the parents or the law agree on it or not. theres no reason why age difference should matter. I believe there is nothing wrong as long as they are both willing.
Just because they’re willing does not mean they’re not being victimized. The question is who has the power over whom? Sorry, but a fourteen year old girl does not have the life experience to make such a decision and grasp its consequences. Whether she goes along willingly or not, she is still being exploited by someone who has a specific objective that she cannot yet fully comprehend. It’s one thing when teenagers are exploring among themselves, but entirely different when an older adult is calling the shots. Sexual behavior changes from playful and experimenting to goal-oriented over the course of one’s life. The adolescent is not in a position to understand this nor fully understands the consquences of her decisions.
Why are we talking about this anyway? Did you get caught in Dateline’s dragnet, Joe?
“Mother Theresa did not, by choice, “want to eat or drink more than one can reasonably consumeâ€, she is/was a Mother Theresa after all – the others can, but not because they choose to, it is that they can not choose not to, greed.”
Okay, but do you think there really is any correlation between those who are prosperous and those living morally? Isn’t it obvious that the world is full of highly prosperous people who are simply selfish and greedy? This so-called law would imply that the Sultan of Brunei is putting out the most good “vibes†of anyone. This is because he is the richest man in the world, has a harem of 40 some odd women, and lives in sybaritic luxury. He truly has a charmed life.
However, he is also oppressive to his people, women in particular. But then this is not uncommon in the world of rulers.
But if we were to chart it out with those who clearly exhibit moral behavior against those who seem to have everything go their way, do you really think really think they’d intersect? Don’t you think the have-it-all crowd would be just riddled with the selfish, the fraudulent and some of the most immoral?
I guess kings throughout the ages, not to mention the Roman emperors, were some of the most moral people ever.
People just seem to have a need to believe that our intentions and actions are rewarded and punished regardless of what they see in reality. If it were true and the universe was balancing the score based on some universal morality measurement, then we’d have no need for a legal system.
There are plenty of examples of bad things (truly bad things) happening to good people, and great things happening to bad people. There is no correlation. Besides, a charmed life is nothing more than how others respond to what one does. and therefore is at the whim of free choice. For example, acting morally is not going to cause your orange tree to produce more fruit or your crops to grow healthier. Obviously, nature does not respond to human morality. I’m sure that 4 out of 5 farmers would agree. What is being said is that other humans are somehow guided by invisible forces to reward the moral individual. When you bought Windows XP (assuming you didn’t copy it illegally!), was that the invisible hand rewarding Bill Gates for being such a great person? That you didn’t know why, but you had an uncontrollable urge to buy a computer completely acting out against your own freewill. That your consumer purchases are not really based on your own wants and needs, but guided by a metaphysical hand out to reward the captains of industry. Really?
JQP – youve recently mentioned a situation having to do with deepak chopra suing someone – is there a website that i can go to to read more about it? it would be greatly appreciated thank you.
No, he sued and lost. That was a few years ago. I posted an excerpt, I believe. There are a number of lawsuits from him. Also, the Skeptics Society (which investigates paranormal and mystical claims) have written a number of articles about his fradulent claims and hypocritical lifestyle. In any case, here are some links:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E1D8133EF93BA2575BC0A960958260
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/03/07/chopra/index.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000113/ai_n9600609
http://skepdic.com/chopra.html
Clip from that last link:
“Chopra spends much of his time writing and lecturing from his base in California where his license to practice medicine is delinquent. He charges $25,000 per lecture performance, where he spouts out a few platitudes and give spiritual advice while warning against the ill effects of materialism. His audiences are apparently not troubled by his living in a $2.5 million house in La Jolla, California, where he parks his green Jaguar, which he can easily afford since he has amassed millions of dollars from the sales of his books, tapes, herbs, appearances, etc. Chopra is much richer and certainly more famous than he ever was as an endocrinologist or as chief of staff at New England Memorial Hospital. He left traditional medicine behind in 1981 when Triguna convinced him that if he didn’t make a change he’d get heart disease. Shortly after that he got involved in Transcendental Meditation. In 1984 Chopra met the Maharishi himself and in 1985 Chopra became director of the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center for Stress Management in Lancaster, Massachusetts. Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through Maharishi Ayurvedic products.
Perhaps the greatest deception of Ayurveda is that it cares for the person, not just the body as traditional medicine does. As Chopra puts it, “The first question an Ayurvedic doctor asks is not, ‘What disease does my patient have?’ but, ‘Who is my patient?'”* That may be the question, but it is not a person that the doctor is healing. It is the “quantum body” or the “mind-body”; it is the dosha that needs balancing. Taking a person’s pulse and telling them their dosha is unbalanced and they should eat more nuts or less spicy foods, etc., hardly shows concern for the patient as a person. Not using a current photo on your web site or on the jacket of your latest book, which would show how you are aging, is deceptive, especially since you claim to know how to overcome aging.”
=================================================
There is the James Randi JREF foundation that offers 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal or psycic phenomenon under simple conditions (i.e. they do not get to set things up). The fund has been around since 1964 and no one has ever demonstrated any proof. Chopra claims meditators can levitate (I sited this book earlier). He could simply take JREF up on it and donate the million to charity. But he doesn’t, why? Why will he not prove his claims to skeptics?
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
A little more description in this link:
http://skepdic.com/randi.html
URI GELLER CAUGHT RED-HANDED!
http://www.sisyfos.cz/sisyfos/geller.htm
Many have already said that Uri Geller, the Israely self-proclaimed psychic, famous for his ability to bend spoons apparently with the power of his mind, uses trickery to perform his wonders. Never before, however, had happened that he could be clearly seen using trickery in the recording of a tv show. Today, the finding of a videotape containing a participation by Geller to an Italian Tv show documents inequivocably his recurring to fraud.
Massimo Polidoro, one of the founders of CICAP (the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)* and an expert in psychic-deception, found the tape. ”I was researching material for my book Mysteries”, Polidoro explains, ”when I found the recording of an episode from a few years back (March 18, 1989) of ‘Alla ricerca dell’arca’ (Search for the Ark), a tv show then airing on RAI3. Guest on this episode was Uri Geller who, as usual, demonstrated his claimed powers by bending a key and moving the hands of a watch ”with his mind”, as he said. However, if one looks carefully to the recording of the show one can catch various clues that show how Geller did really perform the demonstrations: for example, Geller can be seen taking out the stem of the watch to move its hands, myabe thinking that the move went unnoticed”.
It’s the first time that Geller, who has always stated that he has never used any trickery, is so clearly caught red-handed on tape. It’s surprising, however, that nobody had ever noticed before this damning evidence. “This, instead, shouldn’t come as a surprise”, Polidoro explains. “At Padua’s University we have conducted experiments which demonstrate this precise fact: it is not possible for somebody to catch a trick behind a claimed psychic demonstration if he has no specific training in how tricks of this kind work. It’s not a question of intelligence but, as I say, of knowledge. In fact, it has happened many times that scientists have been duped by psychics or mediums just because they couldn’t figure out their tricks. In the Geller tape, for example, it is not so obvious how he bends the key or moves the hands of the watch, but a trained eye can catch the crucial moments where he appears to use a second key to bend the first one and where he pops out the stem of the watch to move the hands of it with a finger”.
A detailed analysis of the tape, along with telling pictures, will be published in ”Scienza & Paranormale”, the journal of CICAP (article and pictures, however, are available in pre-view to journalists requiring them).
The Geller video. Not sure if WordPress let’s me embed a link, but here goes:
Nope. So here it is as an unembedded link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJSxsbToLeE&feature=related
Oh what I’ve been missing, the beauty of it all. Thanks JQP and Dave B. For defending the faith. Of science that is. Of course one can see in what camp I generally reside but that does not mean I discount the opposing views. Let me address Gary. He seems to be a very strong speaker for his camp. I agree with you Gary that “you cannot disprove what you do not yet know exists”. that adds up to zilch. by your standard of reasoning which happens to coincide with religious faith at latge, for that is the nature of faith, then everything and anything is possible and if you want to follow that line of reasonig than what’s the point of discussing anything. the fact is whether you like it or not the world is governed by some absolutes, you can call it whatever you like, science or xxxx it doesn’t matter it just is. we can agree, no problem, that neither one of us can walk through a brick wall because we can stand there together and demonstrate it. that you can accept. and just as easily you would deny a statement from me that i can walk through a brick wall because you would demand that i do it which of course i can’t. so why just accept blindly anything. by the way every society does not belive in ghosts. most belive in tangible reality. lightning and thunder have scientific explanations which are very feasible. however if you want to believe in Norse Gods that’s fine. I love fantasy. MJOLNIR! just because one does not blindly accept certain religiuos doctrine or a belief in ghosts does not mean that individual is negative. quite the contrary. once you decide to give up on finding “the answer” (which we may never find and that’s fine by me) you have become quite negative in your beliefs. the passion and excitement in being human is in that continuous search for the answer. and look what it has uncovered in the name of science. our world can’t breath without it. I’m not saying ghosts can’t exist I’m just waiting for some proof. cmon dude don’t cave in so easily. did you know dude that carrots can walk and talk. i’ve never seen it. no one has. ever. but i have faith so it must be true.
metal joe…the problem is that these immature girls don’t know what they are getting themselves into. some slimeball talks them into meeting and then when he gets there he forces himself on her either outright physically or mentally. wake up.
oh yeah forgot to tell you i saw that pile of waste Dyer on tv again just a few days ago. he was on stage with an audience, they had a set made up for him. it was a rendition of a jungle with a pond and little waterfall as per his request. he used the water in his demo to show how one cannot grab water, one must allow it to flow over him. bruce lee did it much better and made sense. another one of Dyer’s failed attempts at metaphorical assignation. what a douche. and the best part was he was barefoot. i swear what a great comedy this would make. shakespeare would have appreciated it. surely he could play the fool in any # of shakespeare’s comdeys, or pehaps tragedys would be better. and again he was blowharding about how we should all be giving away our material goods till we have zero. what a hypocrite. i love how the camera scans the countenacnces of the emotionally diminished auidience members. are they deluded or paid? this crap is only one step above a ron popeil gig. a visit from anton chigurh might open his eyes. “uh yes mr. Chigurh the truth is I am so full of shiiii….”
Please excuse several typos in my previous posts such as “audience” and “believe”. I will try to be more careful in the future if we make it.
JohnQ,
I can understand your horror at what was done in the name of spreading religious dogma, but please understand that the gospel Christ preached was that the Father had sent him to heal the sick, restore the broken, and forgive sinners, not condemn them as in what happened with the inquisitions. The perpetrators of such atrocities could not legitimately defend their “religion†against the heart of the gospel. By all means, hold them in contempt, but not the faith that they claimed to possess.
True Christianity does not lead people to saw non-believers in half. It does however give rise to the kind of love that would cause one to die in their enemy’s stead rather than see them pass into judgment. Every year, well over 150,000 Christians die simply because they believe Jesus to be who he said he was. They are imprisoned, tortured and killed in many of the same ways you mentioned earlier on a day to day basis. I would encourage you to read the book “Tortured for Christâ€, or to subscribe to the “Voice of the Martyrs†newsletter as a good reference to what true faith looks like.
A few questions: Who would you consider to be a sinner, and what is it like for you to have Christians in the close family? Does it cause a lot of debates like what we’re presently engaged in or does it never really come up? I just had the suspicion that you’ve probably had some pretty bad experiences within your own life, and that you’re not simply just turned off to Christianity by the historic atrocities alone.
Tim B, you are in trouble, it doesn’t look like you have read much of what is posted here. I can’t wait for John’s reply.
â€this crap is only one step above a ron popeil gig.â€
Ha! LOL! New age spirituality! It slices! It dices! And if you act now, we’ll throw in this free Chia-pet Buddha! Fun for the whole family! (Pathway to eternal nirvana sold separately.)
“The perpetrators of such atrocities could not legitimately defend their “religion†against the heart of the gospel.â€
Well, there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement on that from within Christianity. I noticed your choice of words: “the heart.†That seems to be where the disagreement lies. Interpretations vs. literal.
They could not legitimately defend it against the gospel? Let’s look at that.
Now, I’m no expert on the bible, but I know that it is scattered enough that you can use it to support almost any position. (That is a problem with something that is supposed to be the authoritative guide to life, wouldn’t you say?)
But the executors of the inquisitions did back in the bible, although not specifically the gospels as you point out. For example:
From Deuteronomy 13 NIV: “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you…and he says, “Let us follow other gods”…That prophet or dreamer must be put to death…You must purge the evil from among you.
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him…You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death…Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray…then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
=================================================
So, obviously such violent acts do have a basis in Christian thought.
But the gospels, in particular, were not really known by the second century Christians who wrote them much less when they written. Their time of origin in history and who actually wrote them matters because before what is usually referred to as the age of reason writers were very much obsessed with other-worldliness. They had no problem mixing up the time and place of events, and fantasy with truth. This is because they believed that the events themselves were more significant that exactly when and where. They did not view historical events in a man-centered way. Only certain authors during pre-Renaissance gave significance to the specific time of events, and they were rare. Therefore, it is highly probable that the gospels were written by those who had no problem mixing fantasy with truth.
So then if you’re one to believe in the spirit of the gospels and not its literal accuracy, then I don’t have much an argument. That is because you then are deliberately ignoring what you find objectionable or ridiculous (i.e. you’re cherry picking the bible to suit your own sense of reason and morality), and therefore are no different than me in how you develop your worldview. You’re just using a different body of criteria.
But I am not really picking on Christianity, in particular. I am railing against faith in general on 3 levels:
=============================================
1)It inevitably leads to absolutist positions because it attempts to be not just a guide to living but comprehensive answers to everything from how everything originated to what the purpose of everything is.
==============================================
2)No faith has ever successfully united humanity. It continually divides us precisely because it promotes absolutist positions.
==============================================
3)It is now an outmoded method of inquiry that is found in the primitive eras of all cultures.
==============================================
Progress is synonymous with the shedding of faith. This is because faith exists to constrain change against an ever changing world. That is why it cannot tolerate new developments and views things such as gay marriage and reasoned explanations of our world as a threat to its very existence. This is evident when you realize that all its institutional tentacles exist precisely to thwart change. For example, marriage attempts to eliminate the changing of partners; laws exist to protect your property and health from the actions of others, which would create intolerable change to your life. Faith is rooted in keeping things the same for humans. In fact, this is most likely why it promises immortality—sameness forever as the biggest reward of all. Our natural environment changes on us (seasons, weather, crop yield, etc.) and we constantly battle against those changes. For example, heating and cooling our immediate environment to thwart undesirable temperature change is an example of fighting change. We idealize a perfect balance of existence that does not change and, therefore, would like it to last forever. Faith creates an abstracted ideal of that fight against change through the repetition of rituals and large promises. Therefore, faith just can never be a friend to progress because progress is what it seeks to stop.
Regarding a comment about a faith in science. I do not have a faith in science, but I do trust it. There is a difference. One is an abdication of reason and a leaping to belief without any substantiating support. The other is an earned position based on an existing track record. Science has earned my trust.
Well,
I know it isn’t 2008 yet. However, seeing as “I’m leaving on a jet plane…” tomorrow, thought I’d toss this out to everyone.
What exactly is this blog about?
A few random questions…
1. When did throwing out opinions about people, and their mannerisms, become academic?
2. When did it become a fair and impartial idea to have an atheist assess other’s spiritual beliefs?
3. If you – my compadre JQP – don’t believe in God, or any spirit or spiritual teachings – could you possibly represent a “jury” of a spiritual person’s peers?
Well, I don’t want to scare you away JQP, because I think we may be meant to teach each other a few things – in 2008 however. I will be sooooooo busy ’til then.
However, lil tid bit for y’all – when I wrote so many of my earlier posts, I did so – tossing in everything AND the kitchen sink – because I never knew what might end up being important down the road. (Ex; glad I mentioned the book seller at B & N who told me the story about growing up in Texas. Now, if anyone ever wants to check out that story – {allowing me to stay anonymous} – they’d have a starting point, yes?)
Funny, that B & N just happens to be located closer to YOU (than me) JQP. Sort of cute that in the end it might be you who could end up verifying so many things. (If I could get a better sense of your integrity and… INTENTION, and – sorry about this comment here – ethics in certain areas, I might not be so skittish about protecting all of the people in my life – including those who have invested in me both personally and professionally {ESPECIALLY those who are invested in me CREATIVELY}) Realistically, nobody but me volunteered to jump into this, and it wouldn’t be fair to throw anyone else into it (kicking and screaming). Might have a lot of people wanting to throw me under a bus (WANTING – not doing 😉
You know where you and I intersect JQP? Deep down, I think we may both want peace.
If ya’ get rid of anything to argue about (all those pesky spiritual questions), then maybe (an ethical sort of atheist might think) all will be nice and quiet? Perhaps? ….
Well, I can’t get rid of those pesky questions.
But I do wish everyone…
(including Zero – didn’t love how he was treated on this site btw. My apologies to you Zero {for any way I may have appeared to have played into it as well}. And, my apologies to anyone else who deserves one from me – before the end of the year even!
And the wish for us all?
PEACE.
The rest of my apologies:
to magicians (I think the art of ILLUSION could be quite artistic, not just whimsy)
the following shows: American Idol (although I haven’t watched it, I think it has ‘discovered’ several interesting and vital artists), and all those medical dramas I labeled silly (they only feel silly to me because they often focus on the medical providers – and if I went to work feeling like it was all about me, I’D JUST FEEL A BIT SILLY – that’s all).
There. A nice new start (for me) for the upcoming New Year now.
Health and happiness to you all.
And… a deep, fulfilling sense of… Peace.
“If you – my compadre JQP – don’t believe in God, or any spirit or spiritual teachings – could you possibly represent a “jury†of a spiritual person’s peers?”
Words in a desperate search for a meaning. I have no idea what this means.
“(If I could get a better sense of your integrity and… INTENTION, and…”
I don’t know how I could be any clearer on my positions. My integrity? You doubt that I don’t hold these views? All I can say is that I write what I think is true. Why would I write otherwise?
“If ya’ get rid of anything to argue about (all those pesky spiritual questions), then maybe (an ethical sort of atheist might think) all will be nice and quiet? Perhaps? ….”
Huh? More drug induced ramblings? If you don’t do drugs, perhaps you should consider it. Your writing might then become decipherable.
HavAGr8Day, we may be politically aligned, but I in no way would ever associate myself with someone who seems so confused. (Or writes like it.) You so remind me of my days in the sixties when I was politically active, but didn’t really like or associate with those standing next to me on the same side of the issue.
We may agree on some things, but I do not share your snuggles the teddy bear, rosy spin on the world. You can’t solve problems unless you can see things clearly and accurately in the first place. Your thinking comes across as hazy, so it is hard to take you seriously. Navel gazing is not the way to go.
“(Ex; glad I mentioned the book seller at B & N who told me the story about growing up in Texas. Now, if anyone ever wants to check out that story – {allowing me to stay anonymous} – they’d have a starting point, yes?)”
WTF?? Check out what story? What are you talking about?
After reading and re-reading your last posts, I’m convinced you have absolutely no understanding, other than a very rudimentary one, of what’s being said. Navigating your posts is like walking a drunken sailor’s path.
“Funny, that B & N just happens to be located closer to YOU (than me) JQP.”
You mean the Promenade B&N off Weslake Blvd. I don’t usually go there. I spend more time at Border’s on Thousand Oaks Blvd. just off Moorpark Rd. In fact, I’m part of a Mensa group that meets there every Sunday.
“What exactly is this blog about?”
The invalid use of scientific terms in new age spiriuality. That if a new age spiritualist is to convince the scientest of a position by stealing his language, then at least understand what it is you’re stealing. More broadly, how religion lacks true morality and spirituality is nothing more than superstition and mythology.
Could it be any more clear?
A response to HavAGr8Day’s “You know where you and I intersect JQP? Deep down, I think we may both want peace..,â€: We intersect only on goal, which is not deep because in the end it is what most everyone wants even if they don’t realize they’re not helping. Let me explain my perspective on that. Dyer and his ilk are the reason why the progress of civil and women’s rights were stunted in this country; Dyer and his ilk are the reason why that since 1968 28 years have been under Republican rule; Dyer and his ilk caused the Reagan revolution in the eighties; you and your ilk continue to poison progressive politics because of your loony I’ll-believe-anything-magical attitude, which alienates masses who could truly make significant changes in this country.
What is your ilk? New age spiritualists which are a direct offshoot of the sixties drug culture. Don’t believe me? Examine the lyrics and attitudes of the drug culture and tell me it is not the same as new age spiritualism; examine movements like the Diggers and tell me they are not in common with new age spiritualism. New age spiritualism represents the empty headed, childish, naive, showing no intellectual depth, buy-anyone’s-nonsense, band of eccentrics. They will always put people off and will continually keep the right in charge—because guys like Karl Rove use it to their advantage.
Do progressive politics a favor and either start acting like an adult in public or find another political leaning because you and your ilk are likely to damage some very serious goals for 2008—getting out of Iraq. When you publicly act like you don’t have a brain in your head, you hurt the very causes you care about.
We do not intersect on a deeper level.
John, you infuse your opinion with humor and wonderfully profound wisdom. Very few originals rarely find ready audience…, all the best in 2008.
“a” ready audience, (I don’t speak your language)
Response to JohnQ:
Yeah, I figured I was opening a giant can of worms with that last post, but I’ll be happy to respond. But let us remember that this has now shifted to a theological debate about the nature of God within the Christian scriptures, and how that relates to the gospels and the inquisitions that followed. I’m simply responding to what you perceive as a contradiction within the belief system.
The Bible describes God’s character in many ways, but out of all his attributes, it is his Holiness that is elevated above all others. He is described as being Holy, Holy, Holy (Isaiah 6:3 ESV), which is a Jewish way of communicating that God is essentially, really, really,REALLY holy. It is also quite clear in its teaching that the human race is really, really, REALLY, not holy.
Romans 3:10-12(ESV) 10 “as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands;no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Speaking of our hearts it says:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?â€Jeremiah 17:9
So this is the state and relation that the Bible places God and the human race. He is desperately holy, and we are desperately wicked.
In the early stages of redemptive history, God chose a nation out of all the peoples of the earth to make his own. They were to be his special, chosen, and holy people, set apart in their ways from all others. They were not to associate with or be “contaminated†in the least way with outside nations. When God told them to slaughter other nations that were leading them away from him, there is one major thing we must consider. The entire human race was deemed worthless and wicked and deserving of punishment for their rebellion and hatred for God and each other in their hearts. God would not be unjust in ordering this sentence upon them since, according to the impossibly holy standard of God, they deserved every bit of it. To offend the holiness of God was no small thing. Israel of course deserved this judgment as well, but it was only on account of his mercy that he chose to raise them up as children under a banner of love and patience. This was to bring forth from them a written law and priesthood that would prepare the way of Jesus.
Now, we must note that these commands of God to destroy various nations did not give free reign to the Israelites to kill whoever they darn well pleased. It was only by God’s specific instruction to do so, and to do so on a governmental level as it is when a country goes to war or when a state exercises capital punishment. It was not given as a personal command as though one person could simply walk up to another and kill them because they looked at them funny.
God had very specific purposes in such decrees, namely, to rise up, protect, and preserve a people group that was unlike any other. Unfortunately, the Israelites had a very hard time with following God according to the covenants that were made between them, and they continually rebelled, were punished, repented and were again restored. Again, this was all for the purpose of building and protecting a nation that would prepare the perfect atmosphere for the coming of the messiah.
All the while this was taking place, God sent prophets to announce the coming of a conquering king that would once and for all establish Israel and destroy all her enemies. He would come in great power and his kingdom would not end. There are many passages that speak of this throughout the Old Testament such as Isaiah 11 and Psalm 72.
Now, let’s jump ahead to the time of the New Testament. Looking earnestly through the scriptures, the Jews were expecting a great king that would come in glory, abolish Roman rule and deliver Israel into the promised heavenly kingdom in the way of the kings of old like David. But when Jesus began teaching in the synagogue, (Mark 1: 21-22) he spoke of the Kingdom of heaven in a way that none of the chief Pharisees could comprehend or accept. The kingdom that Christ spoke of would be established not by the wielding of the sword in glorious battle, but by the humbling of the heart as a little child.
Matthew 18:3 “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.â€
Its growth would not be visible in the way that previous kingdoms grew, namely, by geographic or political domination. It would grow in and conquer human hearts invisibly as yeast leavens bread, though no one can see it working.
Matthew 13:33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”
The Jewish Pharisees were astonished and greatly angered by the “blasphemy†Jesus was uttering against their sacred scriptures. The kingdom Jesus spoke of was not at all what they were waiting for.
The central teaching of Christ and of the New Testament authors is that the Kingdom of Heaven is not something built by human hands or conceived and controlled within the scope of human power. It was a kingdom that would be built on repentance from dead works and faith in the Rock that the builders rejected(1 Peter 2:8), namely, Christ himself. They would not accept the idea of a crucified king, but instead regarded it as complete foolishness.
1 Cor. 1: 18-25 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men
So, where am I going with this? The point I’m driving to drive here is that the way in which God built up the nation of Israel is not the way in which the kingdom of Christ is built. Israel conquered evil peoples, Christ conquers evil hearts. And this conquering of the heart is not done by coercion, torture, threats, inquisitions or anything of the like. It is brought forth by the conviction of the Holy Spirit within the hearts of sinners like you and me. It is not merely lip service that God desires, which could easily be brought out of someone who was being tortured, but it is legitimate repentance and humility that he desires. No institution of man can achieve this goal; it is only a work of God himself calling us to look to the cross of Christ and see his patience, love and mercy toward us.
The inquisitors and crusaders made the same mistake as the Jewish Pharisees did by believing that the kingdom of the messiah could and would be established through brute force and state power. It is abundantly clear that they were not being true to the teaching of Jesus and the new testament concerning the nature of the kingdom of heaven, and all methods of serious hermeneutical exposition confirm this.
Please do not judge Christianity on the basis of the heinous acts committed by those that do not even understand it, and worse, would hide behind it as justification for their own wicked behavior.
“John, you infuse your opinion with humor and wonderfully profound wisdom. Very few originals rarely find ready audience…, all the best in 2008.”
Thank you. All the best to you and yours, as well. (I don’t speak my language, either.)
Read your post, Tim. I do understand your point. And yes the debate turned within the scriptures. But I am going to step out of that because I do not believe any books of the bible came from supernatural forces and all were written by men during a very primitive era of history. It seems that all the grandest divine gestures reported in Christianity ceased at the same time accurate historical reporting began to rise. For example, God saves the Jews from slavery with a miraculous gesture. But where was he when the Jews were being slaughtered in nazi concentration camps–in modern times? No miracles for a far more horrific incident involving far more Jewish victims? Why? Because the Holocaust was not reported by superstition men during primitive times. If it had occurred during the middle ages, say, then you can be sure it would have been exaggerated ad nauseum.
There is absolutely no reason for me to accept the bible as truth, and every reason to accept it as the fantasies concocted by those that had no other answers and those who were politically motivated to sway a mass movement at the time.
If I step away from the bible and ask, “why should I believe it?†what answer is there except the fallible opinion of someone who already believes it? So, I should ask you, as you are not of Islamic faith, why should I not believe that the Qur’an is the word of God? Why is it that you do not accept it since there are an estimated 1.2 billion who do (according to CAIR)? Why do you know that they don’t? How do you know that Mohammad was not the last true prophet?
================================================
The reason why you do not accept it is because it was not how you were raised and not prevelant where you were born. You’re merely carring on culture memes with not objectivity. It is unlikely you stepped out of your faith, examined all faiths and chose the one that made the most sense. This is not how religion carries forward. Religion is regional and very much culturally based. Each and every culture has it beliefs and all tend to be morally absolutist about it; each says their’s is the one truth. They can’t all be right.
Follow on to my post about how new agers keep Republicans in power.
Here’s a great example of the direct connection new age spiritualism, Dyer in particular, has with the sixties drug culture. Ram Dass is one who Wayne Dyer vociferously promotes.
Wayne Dyer on Ram Dass: “If there has ever been a great spirit who lived in our lifetime, literally devoting his life to the highest principles of spirit, it has been Ram Dass. I love this man; he has been my inspiration and the inspiration for millions of us.”
=================================================
Now let’s look at who Ram Dass is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Dass
Excerpt: “Having only recently obtained his pilot’s license, Alpert [Ram Dass] flew his private plane to Cuernavaca, Mexico, where Leary first introduced him to teonanácatl, the Magic Mushrooms of Mexico. By the time Alpert [Ram Dass] made it back to America, Leary had already consulted with Aldous Huxley, who was visiting at M.I.T. Through Huxley and a number of graduate students they were able to get in touch with Sandoz, who had produced a synthetic of the magic mushrooms called psilocybin. Alpert [Ram Dass] and Leary brought a test batch back to Harvard, where they conducted the Harvard Psilocybin Project.“
==============================================
So, Dyer’s best friend (his words used in another article) is a disciple of renowned acid head Timothy Leary. New age spiritualism is indeed just a continuation of the sixties drug culture right up through today. And because they hijacked left-wing politics (and causing successive losses of Democrats since 1968 with only Jimmy Carter and Bill Client as exceptions), they have only themselves to blame for our entry into Iraq. They unwittingly played a large part in history by ensuring that Republican ideology would look more appealing than the nut jobs found on the fringes of the left.
This loony faction of the political left-wing (which I call progressive, not liberal, because of its roots in Women’s Suffrage, FDR, and Martin Luther King–none of whom came from the drug culture) has done more damage to the progress of progressive ideals than all the George Wallaces of the south.
The association of this loony faction is what Karl Rove exploited since the early nineties and was used successfully to put George Bush in office and keep him there. Rove’s political strategy was to remind swing voters in mid-western states of the wacky radical left found in the Democratic party. California was the stereotype. (I recently spoke with right-wing politico Pat Buchanan, who I met at a book signing in Texas, and deeply disagree with, mind you. And because we were in Texas and he assumed I was local. You should have heard the stereotyping of Californians he used with me. This is how Republican politicians talk about us when they’re not in California.)
Compassion-driven progressive politics was the mainstay for 30 years after Herbert Hoover. Then the drug culture came along, hijacked it and stunted its growth for 30 years.
So, HavAGr8Day, every time you pop off with one of your effervescent adolescent posts, you reinforce not only the California stereotype but the women-will-never-be-as-intelligent-as-men stereotype to boot. Remember, that Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, said in a commencement speech that women would never be the intellectual equals of men. If you care that women are not taken as seriously as men, then you’ll think about how you appear.
When you act like a ditz, you play right into that stereotype. If you doubt it, review Jodee’s initial impression of you. That is middle America’s reaction and why they fall right in to the arms of Karl Rove.
The basis of the new age spiritual movement: Acid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hW6Dm_m5t4&feature=related
Note at 4:10 where some new age notions come from: “That is one of the components of the LSD experience.”
For all intents and purposes, this could be Dyer talking. He says all the same things.
Yes, this is the basis of your movement; the result of some very hazy notions from some heavily medicated minds.
The Physics of Santa
There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn’t (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total – 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average census rate of 3.5 children per household, that’s 91.8 million homes. One presumes there’s at least one good child in each.
Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.
Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc…..
This means that Santa’s sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second – a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour
The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa This increases the payload – not even counting the weight of the sleigh – to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison – this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth
353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance – this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth’s atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, it is no wonder that Rudolph’s nose glows!! Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.
John Q – i followed the site that you gave me to find the info on deepak suing for millions of dollars to someone but i couldnt quite find it could you please give me more specific instructions – i did find a little something about his staff suing but it didnt go into detail oh and by the way you are giving me the site that is trying to sell the skeptic dictionary for $20 a pop. Thank you
Well, I grew up in Michigan, not far from where Wayne Dyer lived.
And now, I live in Southern California, quite close to where John Q P lives.
It is a small world; and I think there’s enough going on all around it, (that truly needs our love and effort) – then for me to stay here and contribute to what would amount to be (for me) artificially manufactured conflict.
Not sure what to say about any of the above comments directed to me by JQP.
My use of the word “wonder” came from a talk given by an Italian priest in Michigan. I adored him as a person. His talk was all about what happens to our ability to feel compassion and delight once we lose our ability to feel wonder.
My reference to a quote regarding how it is difficult to see anything dark when one is “searching for glad things” – (cross-referenced earlier by JQP with things Wayne Dyer wrote) – came from a calendar that was part of a gift basket given to me by a truly wonderful human being (Jewish btw, and a volunteer) at the charity for which I consult.
Wish I had been strong enough to have given you the entire white owl story – within its appropriate context.
It’s a remarkable (true) story – that doesn’t even need any conclusions to be drawn from it. It sort of says whatever it says all by itself. (However, the night after I began writing it? I realized that JQP hadn’t gone off to work on some charity somewhere :), but was in fact waiting to “come back” and add his commentary at some point or another. I also thought a lot that night about how sacred things can be trivialized when they are not presented responsibly, or in their proper context. Think I maybe got about 15 minutes of sleep that night… thus the reason for my extra dose of typos the following night.) Ah, well. Sometimes, there just isn’t enough time for everything.
And the time that there is – it’s precious. Yes?
Once, on the LAST DAY of an intervention pilot program that I was responsible for in grad school, (working with young children in homeless shelters), I gathered all of my materials, and said my “good good-byes”. As I walked out into the snowy afternoon, my heart felt a bit of an ache. A three year old girl, whose middle name was Raelin, had gotten a home (with her mother) the previous week – and I hadn’t had the chance to say good-bye, nor to encourage her excitement and wish her well. I’d developed a real bond with her during the previous months, and she was very much on my mind as I walked off down the snowy sidewalk. Suddenly, a loud, happy squeal interrupted my thoughts. I turned – just in time to see little Raelin, (her tiny blue parka flying open in the wind) running down the sidewalk – and knelt – just in time for her to jump into my arms (her mother quite a few steps behind her). Her mother had decided to stop by for a holiday lunch – and to share how well everything was going. The timing? Just lucky I guess.
Life is often so very, very generous.
One more (true) story:
I once had the honor of working with a patient whom I admired greatly. (Lucky me – she seemed to adore me too.) I’ve always loved a “good good-bye,” and thus used to make it a habit of checking discharge dates prior to leaving work each day at the hospital. One Friday, I found out that the above patient would be leaving the following Saturday afternoon. I knocked on her door and she invited me into her room…
There she sat – looking healthy, strong, and happy.
“They’re kicking me out tomorrow,” she said, hands folded gently over her blanket.
“No,” I said, shaking my head. “They’d never kick you out…”
She smiled (holding my eye contact and waiting…).
“There’s a little button on the left side of your bed,” I explained,
“When the discharge nurse presses it, that ceiling tile over your head slides open, and…”
“Ptew!!……..” she said, laughing.
Hugs.
Endings.
New Beginnings.
So many people wrote so many thought-provoking posts on this site.
All contributed to my integrating some important things for myself (things that will hopefully help me to better serve the clients for whom I consult, as well as to support some of my best-loved friends – friends who are being asked to lend their elegant, gentle, peace-making voices to larger stages all over the world).
If you wrote an honest, sincere post from your heart (and/or MIND ;), thank you. Know that I read and “listened” to them all.
And if you ever think of me, send me some good thoughts and “energy,” will you? 🙂
I’ll be doing the same for you…
Now? Well, I’m pretty sure it’s time for one of those “good good-byes.”
(PS the last posts on my screen are dated 12/25… if any new ones appear after I post this; well, I’m sure I’ll be somewhere too far off in the cosmos to address them. Ah, well. 🙂
Now,
where’s that John Q P when you need him?
Or even John Henry?
Db?
Guess I’ll have to press this button myself…
May 2008 bring us (humanity) many opportunities for growth, love, and understanding.
(OH! Here’s that button!)
The very best to you all!
…
And now, happily, and a bit wistfully,
here I go…
Ptewwwwwwww!!……………………………………..
(xox!)
hi hav-a. what a beautiful good-good-bye post. well, this blog did live for a while, but i guess there`s been too much fighting, really too much, for the dialogue to survive. and of course you contributed so much spirit and fun, you know that. now listen to this (will this make you happier?): I saw Deepak . 2 days age. a night lecture and a day seminar in tel aviv.
speechless. in jerusalem.
so there`s less chance for me to attend yours and JQP’s BBQ in S. California.
greetings and loving thoughts and H.N.Year. i forgot how to make that lil` yellow face.
Riddle me this: Wayne Dyer’s guru and teacher says that law of attraction has been “the secret” of India for ages.
Examples of his teaching:
http://manifesting-reality.blogspot.com/2007/07/dattatreya-siva-baba-sri-siva.html)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZlHZZlH_9c
Why is it then that India has one of the highest poverty rates in the world? Over a quarter of their population lives below the poverty line yet they have a modern government that achieved nuclear capability.
Yet another example that the law of attraction is bull. (The best example is Donald Trump.)
Question on Dyer’s books: Once you’ve mastered his 10 secrets for success and inner peace, why on earth would you need the power of intention to manifest what you want? You already have success and inner peace if you used his last book, why is there always more wisdom to be sold for another $30–or $300 if you buy the whole enchilada?
I
If Wayne Dyer is correct, then poor people are slaves to their own poor intentions. Their poverty is a result of their own thinking and not their circumstances. After all, he reminds us that “circumstances do not create the individual, they reveal him.” So, the poor are not victims of circumstances, they caused their own problem according to Dyer’s thinking. (How nice.)
Isn’t his message really a disturbing one when it comes to charity? If he truly was out to help the world with his “magical secret,” would he not go out and air drop his books, for free, to the impoverished regions of the world rather than sell it to the mainly well-off PBS audience? Why bother helping those who already have it good and instead focus on the really needy–if his message is true?
“…I guess there`s been too much fighting, really too much, for the dialogue to survive.”
The discussion of religion or politics always results in some level of conflict because it challenges our most fundamental opinions. No blog or discussion that I have attended that involves religion or spiriutality fails to create conflict. There’s a reason for the maxim “never discuss religion or politics in public.”
So, this forum is no different. Since these arguments originated years before there was an Internet, this dicussion will continue–it is hardly dead. Even though some of the veteran here will get burned out and drop off, someone new somewhere will stumble on this forum and feel the need to express their view on spiriutality. It never fails.
Since when has conflict driven people away? Watch TV some time.
Since
One thing I’ve picked up from this forum: those who follow and believe Dyer’s message have a real hard time articulating their view or answering direct questions about it. I’m not sure if it is because they do not really understand their own beliefs well or that they’re just not good at putting them into words. That differs from the traditional Christians who contributed here. While I may not buy what they’re saying either, at least they articulate well what they are thinking rather than dump out thoughts randomly.
By the way, charity for Costa Rica house building only occurs in March or April. While I do other charities, writing about them here seems too self-serving. I brought them up before only to make or support a point, not to encourage anyone like me.
Mostly that point was action matters more to the poor than kind thoughts. Or, to draw a comparison, Dyer says about one homeless person, “I gave him a couple of dollars and good thoughts.” Nice coming from a millionaire. I’ll tell you, putting a roof over someone’s head means more to them than all the kindest thoughts in the world.
To HAGDS regarding encouragment in “creative processes” or writing: when someone supports what you’re already doing, then there is no new information–nothing to motivate improvement. They are simply telling you what you’re already succeeding at. But when someone criticizes you, then you most likely are gaining a new perspective. So, you grow through improvement and change, not through the reiteration of what you already know or through defending yourself against criticism. I know your prefer warm sentiments and support to cold criticism, but one of the best things to happen to anyone in a professional endeavor is when someone else says, “That sucks!” about their work. After all, work is not about doing it for yourself, it’s about doing for others.
Just a thought.
Look, our host is now a big time celebrity (thanks to his blogs):
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/32282
Since I’m already putting out a blast of posts today, might as well keep going.
What do you consider the greatest motivator: Hope or fear? If you believe hope, then I am curious about how you back that.
Hi JQ.
1. Your very last post is good food for thought that I`ll reflect on.
2. This blog IS sort of waning. Why?
3. Your brlliant rethoric gift gets across as too harsh, thus making conversation a little difficult.
4. Giving feedback and criticque is important, but if expressed in extremis and without empathy, it cannot be used constructively.
5. Blaming the “60`s generation” for the historical events that followed…isn`t it a bit
too far fetched.
6. You sound (in my opinion) too emotional and adamant in your criticism of “Dyer`s ilk”. Seriously, you don`t expect all human beings to be the same, i.e. Hard-facts-minded, logical, left-brained, realistic, practical, non-fantasy-oriented, etc. Some people are vague-minded, inspirational, dreamy, intuitive, not-eloquently-rethoric and even illogical. Some people even think meditation is fine.
7. I`ll admit, towards my posts you`ve been (cyber)-sensitive and gentle. As if you sensed my sensitivity to criticism (post-meeting-Deepak I`m working on it. Would you like to hear Deepak`s tip on that issue?)
8. And despite all the above you were the core (and coer?) of that blog, and I find you a likeable person. And you too, probably, appreciate comfort and support from time to time.
Dyer
it is a pretense …we still want to believe we love and are good, but it does not fit our image, but we still have to labor at the idea of ourselves in love, helping others, wishing well, and watch for the signs; longing, desire to help (forbid predatory habits, oh no!). He is pulling the strings of the puppet that we don’t want to acknowledge we are… (ok, his followers, I meant)
and Hana, you are John’s audience
Eva. Its difficult to think that we`re both predators and good. But your comment did remind me of a phase I went through a year ago when my dog, who had been a sweet pet, transformed into a barking, and later a biting creature, and I was feeling he was “externalizing” MY predatoriness… that was a crazy time. Anyway, I`m wondering what you meant by me being part of John`s audience: that his job is to remind me of my “badness”?
Hello, Hana. Very good feedback. Here are my responses:
Hi JQ.
1. Your very last post is good food for thought that I`ll reflect on. Likewise.
2. This blog IS sort of waning. Why? Blogs tend to wane around the holidays, for one, and for another they tend to pick up with conflict. Notice that with this forum the periods with the most posts also tend to be the most heated. Regarding, perhaps, my relationship with those ebbs of flows is most likely because of my repetition. At least, that would be my guess. I’m sure my points are well understood and are now tired. That’s understandable.
3. Your brlliant rethoric gift gets across as too harsh, thus making conversation a little difficult.
Thank you for the compliment and your point is well taken. But in all honesty it also has to do with hard logic vs. persuasion. That is, if my intention here was to persuade then I would certainly be softer and cover more of the common ground that we do have. But when talking about religious views, I’ve been around long enough (and married long enough) to know this is something near impossible to persuade, so I do not try. I make my point with a take it or leave it attitude. I’m argumentative here because forums like this present me and like-minded others to be so. In real life I try not to be very argumentative at all. So in a way what you’re pointing out is intentional. By that I mean I do try and flush out those who feel strongly to shout back at me because how others think interests me a great deal; why believe believe in magic is very far beyond me. But if you think I should back off so others might come forth, I’m fine with that and certainly would do so. Zer0 once asked me to back off, and I did. So, all you need to do is ask. I’m pretty thicked skined.
4. Giving feedback and criticque is important, but if expressed in extremis and without empathy, it cannot be used constructively. True. But I really touched on that in my last answer. I really didn’t expect my posts to persuade anyone to believe differently otherwise I would have been softer.
5. Blaming the “60`s generation†for the historical events that followed…isn`t it a bit
too far fetched. Actually, my position on that is based on what Karl Rove has said and written, and what I have learned in my research of political strategies. Also, Sen. Obama mentions this in his book when we talks about getting past the Vietnam politics. Political strategists have specifically said what I said. I was holding up HAGDS as the poster child for that group which there is a lot of material to support the idea that the far left anti-Vietnam radicals (which new age spirituality directly grew out of) hurt much of the progressive politics set in motion. For example, at the height of the anti-war movement, 1968, a Republican, Nixon, won—not the left. America overwhelming rejected that anti-war bunch at that time. Then when the radical left really got one of their own, George McGovern, in 1972, he carried only 1 state in the general election—just one! It was a clear message that middle America was rejecting the radical left and yet—here’s the critical point–at the same time progress was being made in equality of women and minorities. So, middle America was evolving and probably would have evolved faster had there not been an association with the radical left that turned so many off and this was evident in their voting at that time. Finally, the Reagan revolution in the eighties was middle American’s direct attack on the far left positions set in the sixties. It is pointed out by many political analysts that the politics that divide this country today are still rooted in Vietnam politics. That divide has not left us and new agers are a remnant. Therefore, it is a very personal pet peeve of mine that new agers are on my side of the political aisle. I do not think their company—the Shirley Maclaine crowd, basically–helps the cause of many social issues that I care about and I resent it.
6. You sound (in my opinion) too emotional and adamant in your criticism of “Dyer`s ilkâ€. Seriously, you don`t expect all human beings to be the same, i.e. Hard-facts-minded, logical, left-brained, realistic, practical, non-fantasy-oriented, etc. Some people are vague-minded, inspirational, dreamy, intuitive, not-eloquently-rethoric and even illogical. Some people even think meditation is fine.
True. Of course I don’t. But I do expect that if women, and women in particular, are to be taken seriously they must act seriously. I have long been a huge supporter of women’s issues and the ERA. It bugs me when women act like children (usually the “free spiritedâ€). I think they do not understand how they’re undermining their own cause and I feel a new to point it out. People like Lawrence Summers who believe women are intellectually inferior to men really tick me off. In many ways, I believe women would run the world better than men and would be greater producers in intellectual endeavors like math and science if they had the same opportunities over many centuries. So, not everyone should be a serious person driven by hard facts, but women have a particular bind that needs to be broken.
7. I`ll admit, towards my posts you`ve been (cyber)-sensitive and gentle. As if you sensed my sensitivity to criticism (post-meeting-Deepak I`m working on it. Would you like to hear Deepak`s tip on that issue?)You have been more circumspect than most. It’s not that I sensed anything about you personally, it is that you have not presented that much fodder for me to use.
8. And despite all the above you were the core (and coer?) of that blog, and I find you a likeable person. And you too, probably, appreciate comfort and support from time to time.
Of course, comfort and support are necessary for anyone. But there seemed to be enough of that in spades here and I do believe self improvement really comes from identifying problems and fixing them more than hugs and kisses. Actually, I was originally set up to offer some writing advice in a much more supporting way because I felt I had something to offer however small. But the intended recipient flipped out almost immediately over minor points and made clear through every post that she needed no one’s advice—especially if it came across as hard (and I’m not talking about anything I wrote). That is, every charge made about her was deflected back as “not true†no matter how obviously right it was. Sure, being supportive could knock down those defensive barriers (my years in corporate life taught me to be pretty good at that, in fact) and, again, I could have taken a persuasive tact, but I really had no inclination to do so. Sorry to repeat myself, but I was not out to persuade anyone, only to made a hard point.
If you are implying that my hard lined logic has chased people away, I would be a little surprised. Not that that does not happen, but that my experience with on-line forums is that the more conflict and hard positions made the more people seem to get involved. But, of course, it all depends on the participates so I really cannot over generalize it.
“…I`m wondering what you meant by me being part of John`s audience…
Yes, I was puzzled, too, by that remark. Actually, when I write here I try to target a much larger “lurking audience,” if you will, and not just the participants.
One other point, Hana, regarding articulation and being intutive. Words are an expression of thought. If your thoughts are clear, then so are your words. I do not believe those who claim they have a hard time putting their thoughts or emotions into words (except for those who are using a second language) because, as they typically claim, their thinking is somehow beyond verbal expression. That is an excuse. (If it were not an excuse, then ask yourself: how is it that Dyer and Chopra can verbalize these same inutitions to no end? In fact, that is all they do for a living–verbalize.) It is really because their thoughts are confused. If they were clear, then they would have no problem articulating them.
The real reason I do not get direct answers to my straight questions on spirituality is not because the recipient can’t articulate them–there easy and anyone could anwser them–it is because they realize the answer is silly. For example, if you believe in the magic that Chopra talks about (e.g. levatation), what also convinces you that Santa Claus does not exist? This question makes you realize there is no distinction. If you buy Chopra, then by the same token it follows that you must buy into Santa Claus; if you make an argument of why Santa Claus can’t exist, then it directly applies to Chopra’s claims, too. DB used excatly the same point when he said that someone must also believe in pink elephants.
It is not that they cannot articulate the answer, it is the answer is obviously ridiculous.
Hi John. I want to re-read your comments tomorrow (the second language thing, you know). Just one or two things.
1. Right, hard critique can sometimes go deeper than hugs and kisses. But, also, it is a question of the right dose: the danger of spilling the tub water WITH the baby. In addition there is the question of taste and genre: diary-style, free-floating associations and un-censored expression is legit, and also finds grace in some people`s eyes. Its free and encourages inspiration. I like it. And I like the careful, well-edited stuff too.
2. “IF YOU BUY CHOPRA THEN BY THE SAME TOKEN IT FOLLOWS THAT YOU MUST BUY SANTA CLAUS”. I don’t believe that you REALLY mean it. And NO, the fact that I cant articulate the answer, does not mean anything, except that I cannot articulate the answer. But wait…I am planning a comeback with a knockout answer. Until then, adieu.
“…I don’t believe that you REALLY mean it.”
I absoutely do mean it. Because there is no getting that you’ll trying to prove a negative–because you have never actually seen levitation. You’ll be constructing an argument for which there is no concrete evidence. (If it truly existed, it would have been demonstrated long ago. And surly someone would have collected the million dollars offered by JREF.) There is a reason it has never been demonstrated and it is the same reason there is no Santa Claus.
Funny, but for all the talk of “growth” and “change” that comes from this camp, when faced with something obviously not true they resist all the impuluses of growth, change and understanding. They tend to stick to their belief of magic regardless of evidence. I don’t see how that is growth.
JQP, you focus in disproving the minute peripheral details for some reason. Who cares about levitation and spoon bending (I suppose some people do, I don`t) or about Uri G for that matter. It really isn`t the essence of “that camp`s” contribution to the world of thought, philosophy and approach to life. Plus, they are not perfect human beings. Just humans and they can make mistakes. If I like to shop at (I`m trying to recall…), say, Bloomingdale`s, I dont buy the whole store.
Now, between you and me, do you find anything interesting, thought provoking, beneficial, wise, or true in, say, Chopra`s books, or in the way he uses quantum-theory principles and applies it to the human condition?
I find his claim of quantum healing to be exactly in the same category as levitation. Those are not peripheral details because he explicity uses them to demonstrate the power of the mind of body. That is, he claims spoon bending is the proof of his theory about quantum healing; that it shows psychokineses, which he says is the basis of quantum healing. You think younger, you grow younger he clams.
I find that completely disingenuous. It is a lie to take money to enrich himself–the same way Uri Geller did. I find nothing thought provoking about it any more than than Jim Baker’s prayer cloth for $1,000 or the cons by Benny Hinn are thought provoking. He is preying on the guillible. It is sad.
Hana, you do understand that Chopra is misuing the idea quantum mechanics? QM has nothing to do with human consciousness and never has. That is a complete misunderstanding of QM. QM has nothing to do with your mind manifesting material objects.
Chopra is delibrately twisting the idea of QM for his own purposes.
Do you really believe that if you think it, it manifests? Even little kids out grow that. That is why it is akin to the belief in Santa Claus.
If Chopra can think himself younger, then let him actually demonstrate it and stop using pictures from 20 years ago on his books. You’d think that if he were really growing younger (he says it is “age reversal” not merely a slowing) that he show it with his pictures. But he does not.
There is no proof that you can reverse aging. None.
John, you realize that we cannot agree on anything b/c you stick to the concrete and I to the ambience, and, dare I say, meaning.
No, I dont understand that Chopra is misusing QM for ulterior motives (really John, why should a person waste a lifetime, travel non-stop, put so much energy in writing books, working on creating a critical mass to bring world peace etc. and do so much more … just to make money?). The little I understand, if at all, is that if the whole of the universe can be viewed as a quantum field, hence, consciousness too.
And you are oversimplifying when you say “if you think, it manifests” (have you read his books?). It is much much deeper and more complex (e.g. the way you think may contribute to manifesting the opposite, as when you`re obsessed about NOT wanting something to happen, so that focusing of thought and consciousness “backfires”).
BUT: Our (mine, especially) talk of QM is not authoritative. My understanding of it is really vague. It`s just that I intuit Deepak`s integration of eastern and western thought to be of special value. For me, for me, for me. And I sense it is also somewhat intriguing to you, otherwise, why all that time and trouble to argue with it.
Deepak looks ok , many people here said he looks much younger than his age, and of course he`s not regressing or age-reversing. He`s talking about an overall attitude to life that has a powerful impact on your whole being, including the physical body.
If I may say that, in your carefully chiselled critical talent, you sometimes tend to over-literalize.
No, actually it is only intriguing to me in the sense that I follow those who expose frauds. Everything from financial to new age. My investment in time on this is really to point these frauds out to other people. My goal, however small, is to publicize fraudulent claims that are of the same vein of the snake oil salesman of the nineteenth century (the cure all medicines). In fact, I stated earlier that one of my purposes in life is pointing out frauds. (I try to post on as many sites as I can.) I believe it is a great injustice what he is doing. Because it deals with health, it is particularly egregious. What I would love to do most is what James Randi does for a living. If I could put Dyer, Chopra, et al out of business I would. If I had the means to take them to court, I would. They are reckless and sell a fraudulent product in the same why as if I sold you a potion that I claimed cured cancer and was nothing more than a bottle full of water. (And, no, a placebo has never cured cancer. It is some limited application, but very limited. ) Basically, they tell you birthday wishes come true (manifesting! Think it and it will happen!) and they don’t. What they do is wrong. Telling you you can reverse your age is a fraudulent claim. His hi-jacking of quantum mechanics is also remnant of a snake oil salesman’s pitch; scientific double-talk that he really does not understand. (Ask any QM physicist.)
================================================
And he does claim literal “age reversal.” This is the kind of nonsense he spews:
For example, Chopra explains the occasional spontaneous remission from cancer as due to a “jump to a new level of consciousness that prohibits the existence of cancer … this is a quantum jump from one level of functioning to a higher level.” Physicists, however, remain puzzled about how quantum mechanics relates to cancer.
Chopra writes, “The physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer … beliefs, thoughts, and emotions create the chemical reactions that uphold life in every cell.” In his book Voodoo Science, Robert Park counters, “Quantum theory is invoked by Chopra to convey the impression that ayurvedic medicine has somehow been validated by modern science. We cannot help but notice, however, that the author of Ageless Body shows unmistakable signs of growing old right along with the rest of us.”
There is one other motivator that keeps me here that I failed to mention: how is it that you (or any believer) buy into these absurd ideas? I truly am curious about it. It is like someone says there are leprechauns in the world but you just can’t see them because you don’t believe. If you comeback and say there’s no proof, then the typical argument is, “Just because you can’t prove doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” Or, “You can’t prove love exists either.” (which since love is experienced by everyone it doesn’t need proof).
How anyone can buy into the claims of miracles or mind-over-matter (pyschokinses, telekinses, quantum healing, levation, moving clouds, manifestion, or any believe-it-and-you’ll-see-it claim) nonsense is beyond me. It is irrational and so I am curious what motivates individuals to buy into something clearly not true and can be demonstrated as not true–or the claimers can never demonstrate their wierd assertions. Why is that?
================================================
I have my own opinions on why people believe in the irrational, though:
1. People have a need for something beyond this life. The spritiual life is always described as better than this one and never involves struggle or strife and is always never ending. This says to me these people are not happy with this life and want something better. They don’t like that fact that we’re thrown into a survival situation.
2. Some cannot let go of their childhood wishes. Thus, the idea that the “inner child,” which implies that our early stages are somehow superior to our more developed stages in life. Why isn’t our “outer adult” a superior state? I think it is much more fun to understand and think rationally than hold on to my childhood amazement which was just an undeveloped understanding of the world. It was mostly wrong.
3. Their life cannot be significant without an external purpose. Actually, if I were to discover I had a purpose from God or “the source” it would put an awful burden on me. I wouldn’t like it. Some just believe their life is not significant without something other than themselves to make it so.
4. They cannot bear the thought of non-existence.
5. They cannot bear the thought of never seeing loved ones someday.
These are all understandable human motivations. But in one way or another they all are rooted in a discontent for the idea that we may be here randomly and what we do has no significance other than survival. I believe attention should be given to surivial. The middle ages is what happened when attention was given to other-worldly matters, and the Renaissance is what happened when we focused on this life and decided it was worth improving.
I like this life. I don’t want or need anything beyond it and the fact that it will end some time is relieving, not fearful. The last thing I want is to go on forever. Have ever considered just how maddening that would be?
Hi John. Your LAST post was a pleasure to read. Dont think that I do not often question my leaning towards spirituality and the “beyond” as just some huge piece of wishful thinking. So I hope to come back here, and read your coherently explained thoughts later, after I`ve dealt with some silly problems at work. Survival silly problems.
Okay. Hope everything is all right.
I’m 2 years into my faith as a Christian. I won’t pretend to know everything, because it’s obvious I don’t. I posted here before but haven’t had much time since. I have struggled with the question that JQP posed earlier. If it’s obvious that santa claus doesn’t exist then why would rational people believe in God?
First, the reason that I believe in God-
I try to rationalize the irrational. The many examples of “evil” that we see or hear about daily. A mother recently gathered her 2 young children into her bedroom. She poured a few gallons of gasoline on the bed, carpet, and dresser. Then she struck a match. Her 2 kids didn’t die until the next day. I feel such a deep sadness when these things happen. This is an irrational world we live in. Science would tell you she wasn’t able to survive any longer. Survival of the fittest and her mental capacity no longer allowed her to survive.
I don’t believe God is going to give me 70 virgins or even a perfect after life. I don’t need that. I don’t even need God to give me a higher purpose. Trust me, I have enough going in my life as it is. And I love to help people, not because I think I’m going to get a better room in the kingdom of heaven, but because it’s the right thing to do.
I do believe my life has been touched by God. I believe he hears my prayers. It seems unrealistic I know. But, every time I have trouble in my life no matter how small, I pray. Every time I’m thankful, I pray. Maybe that is just a form of meditation that helps me to focus. I believe, even though irrationaly that God is with me. You know that feeling you had when you thought santa put those presents under the christmas tree. Thats’ the same feeling I have when I feel God is with me. So the rational persion would say ” You’re an idiot! God doesn’t exist just like santa doesn’t.” But I’ve decided if I’m going through this life- working hard and helping people as much as I possibly can, then I’m going to have God with me- to help and guide me.
“Science would tell you she wasn’t able to survive any longer.”
Actually I don’t think “Science” would have much to say about her case. Sure a doctor would pseudo-diagnose her with some sort of mental instability or a psychologist could give your reasons for her behavior, but to say that Science, at this point in time, has much to say about her is significantly overreaching what Science is, as far as I can tell.
On the other hand, what is the explanation from the Christian perspective? That she is “evil” and has been possessed by satan? That this is God’s way? That God is testing her family by having them suffer this horific tragidy? That she didn’t pray enough? That God was smiting her for sinning?
No, I don’t find that either religion or science has much to say about this horrible episode. As a human being I too think it is tragic and I would like to do all I can to prevent such tragidies (You also insinuate that this is a “new” phenomenon which I think is totally off mark. Mankind, and animalkind, has been acting “irrationally” for all of its existence as far as I can tell.)
“You know that feeling you had when you thought santa put those presents under the christmas tree. Thats’ the same feeling I have when I feel God is with me”
I would just point out that there are many things that we feel which aren’t in any sense real. Misconstruing that your thoughts and feelings are anything more than some physical process, full of randomness and lies you tell yourself, is, in my opinion one of the great human malidays.
Hi John, bad, bad day, confrontation with my boss (scarey lady). But that terrible story (Andrew`s) is a reminder of proportions. Anyway, while I was waiting for my boss I read your line and it was sort of in the right time and place, and somewhat prophetic.
Andrew, the way I interpreted your anecdote is that you feel alone in a world that seems indifferent and, as you pointed out, irrational. That you find comfort in believing that someone, who is all powerful and fatherly, is secretly with you. Certainly, that is understandable, but is it really your best defense? It seems similar creating an imaginary friend to talk to, when really the best defense is to embrace that the world is indifferent and irrational and set yourself apart by being as rational as possible. Nothing cuts through chaos like clear mindedness; nothing beats standing on your own two feet and relying on yourself.
Instead of needing an imaginary therapist to guide you through this wacky world, take personal ownership, and realize that you really are alone and must deal with it and that is really what growing up means. After all, nothing supernatural is going to protect you–clearly there are enough examples like yours of innocent children suffering immeasurably to prove that point. If God does not protect them, why would he protect you?
The best antidote to irrationality is rationality not an imaginary father. Nothing says growth like shedding the need for your father.
what all the people on this site fail to recognize is that dr dyer has got you talking. that is his whole intention. his message is the power of positive thought and positive energy. when you try to read to much into the message you become confused and think maybe its something religious. it is all about the power of positve thought. when you have the power of positive thought no matter your problems, the power of positive thought trancends back to you. our very exsistence is but a speck in time,take that time and do the best you can with it. the more you analyze any thought the more it becomes confused. take a step back and see a simple thought for what it is, simple. children are the best at this. positive begets positive , negative begets negative. peace to all who read this.
Define positive thought.
I disagree. If Dyer’s goal was to simply initiate conversation he would run a free chat room. But his goal is to sell me “the whole enchilada” for $300. I see no evidence whatsoever that all he wants is for people to talk. (What free books has he distributed?)
If so, why does he isolate himself so much? He admits to this. He hides in Hawaii and pretty much disassociates with general society and encourages you do to the same; drop out of society because it is negative and full of conflict is his message in large part. Don’t engage in politics (since it’s about conflict), sports (more conflict), movies (prodigious amounts of conflict), and general societal events that actually bring people together. He tells us, “You’re only alone if you don’t like the person you’re with.” In other words, enjoy being alone from the rest of society. Meditation is a large part of that disengagement.
I see nothing that encourages talking and everything that suggests to disengage with society–especially American society.
to those who talk about god on this site, by talking about this holy enity do you realize that this enity is reaching out to you? when you question the reasons for all the suffering and chaos in the world he has touched you, the only question that remains is what are you going to do about it? for you are now informed. try to make a positve change. this is his biggest test for humanity. forgive them god for they no not what they do. do you see the irony in that statement. god does. be kind to your fellow humanbeings, open a door,bless them when they sneeze,say thankyou, say please, ask them how they are doing. its the little things that amount to a greater selfbeing in life. and in kind you will probably get the same responses back.
to john q. it is a capitalist society we regretably live in. but if you go to your local library and search the internet you can find his earlier books for free. you come off as a very negative person, but i dont think thats so, are you okay? maybe with all the publicity he has ben recieving of late and his publisist thats what they are telling him to do. when you write a book and start making money things change. perfect example is a movie called THE PERFECT DAY with rob lowe. watch it if you can.
“…by talking about this holy enity do you realize that this enity is reaching out to you?”
So Ozzy Osborne is God’s chosen one? Or Jim Baker? Or Jimmy Swaggart? Or Jerry Fallwell? Or Osama Bin Laden? Or Jim Jones?? God picks some real winners then not to mention murderers. They talked about God more than anyone.
“…it is a capitalist society we regretably live in…”
Who regrets it? Not me. I believe one strong economy cures more ills than all the good intentions combined. If fact, there is historical proof. I only bring up money when hypocrites like Chopra claim they’re not about money and they really are. I’m fine with making money, but I’m not fine with used car salesman that rip off the guillable to gain it.
“…when you write a book and start making money things change.”
They sure do. You become full of yourself and start believing everything you think of is the underlying reality of the universe. Not to mention it justifies all the random events in your life. That is, when someone hits success they believe every choice in their life lead to that success and quit believing in luck. Yet, you do exactly what they do and you will not necessarilly find that success. There is luck in the world becuase most of the world is not successful. Only a few are and they come to believe that that success justifies everything they ever did. They lose perspective.
“…by talking about this holy enity do you realize that this enity is reaching out to you?”
Show me one bit of evidence that is true and not just you (or others) making it up. I do not believe you have any backing for this statement whatsoever other than you just think it is so. Do you think that is good criteria to live by? If I think it, it must be so? If you do, then talk to some racists. They believe pretty idotioc stuff (e.g. minorities are inferior) but if your criteria is “think it and it is so,” then they’re just as right as you are.
wow john q god is in every one of us. the humans that you mentioned god did not pick them they only proclaimed themselves as gods chosen. only he can do that and no human knows who that shall be. i agree with you on the money thing celebs make me sick, what good do they do with all thier money? the things i would and could do with all thier money, cant take it with ya when you die.my wife of 28 years and i barely get by yet i choose to take what i can and try to help friends and those that are kind to me if they need it to make thier lives better. john luck comes with kindness to our fellow humans, and gods master plan. i torment alot over why do i do that for somebody when i get nothing in return. my satisfaction is knowing that i did the right thing. and as my wife tells me god is keeping score. i am very interested in talking further if ya want to exchange e-mails. if not thats ok we can talk here. reggie,peace!
john q how can i possibly prove with evidence that the enity is talking to us other than we have ben communicating for 2 and one half hours and you did not choose to say go away reggie?
is it luck or some kind of divine intervention? you tell me i was ready to go to bed 2 hours ago. but evidently i may have peaked your interest in something you may not understand right now?
just listening to Wayne Dyer’s latest DVD set I was given as a Xmas prezzie. Have always liked his message in the past. But I noticed this one is a bit “sleezy”. Reference to viagra and watching women in the yoga class – oh pleeeze. Then he slips in that his marriage has broken up – hey this guy is in his 60s – what am I doing listening to someone who is clearly a mess!
“is it luck or some kind of divine intervention?”
Divine intervention? So, God intervenes to help Dyer become a success, but does not for those kids burned to death by their mother that Andrew mentioned. Or, God intervenes to make sure Deepak Chopra lives in sybaritic luxury, but let’s millions of Jewish men, women and children die in horrible deaths at the hands of nazis. If there is human freewill, then it follows that there must be accidental circumstances that arise from that freewill. Yes, there is luck otherwise God is extremely immoral.
“…how can i possibly prove with evidence…
Really all I’m asking is there any real basis to your claim other than you simply believe it so? I suspect there is not. The fundamental tenet to all spiriality it is that you simply feel it. But feelings are wrong more often than not. For example, those who have a “feeling” about their soulmate only to end up in divorce. (I will bet dimes to donuts that at least to 1 of his 3 wives Dyer said, “You’re my soulmate.”) Yet the divorce rate is over 50%. I use this as one of so many examples I could choose from to demonstrate how wrong feelings are. That statistically, they’re wrong more often than not.
Dyer’s success (really only his first book ever made it to the top 10 and when asked recently how he felt that his books no longer make it to the best seller’s list he said, “I write for the souls not born yet.” What a bunch of crap.) has more to do with his buying market than him.
It is the freewilled choice of the buyers that made him rich, not an invisibile force otherwise the invisibile force plays favorites. I could put out of a book of blank pages entitled “The Secret of Success” and if the buying public thought that was amusing in any way, they’d buy it and make me rich. The Pet Rock is an example of that.
His Erroneous Zones book, which is the one that made him a millionaire, was a fluke in the right place at the right time, ripe for a bunch with a sixties mindset. It was not what he did, it was what the buying public was into at the time. It was the mid-seventies and the whole counter-culture was in full force at the time. The leftovers of the sixties. And this group of mostly drug ridden wackos bought into his (and others at the time) nonsense. His books sold mostly to the counter-culture. So, it was their goofy, hazed view of the world that propelled him into the lap of luxury. They gave him their money just like the equally goofy hazy bunch who give their money away to Heaven’s Gate (or did) or to Scientology.
Question: why is it when I engage in arguing about spirituality some claim it is god touching me? I argue much more about computer science in other blogs. What does that say other than I like a good argument (or even bad ones) and relish conflict? Does this mean the supernatural forces want me to engage in conflict?
Hana, George Bush will be in your neighborhood today. (There goes your property value, too!) Could you please tie him up and keep him in your cellar–indefinitely?
Also, a little Abu Ghraib style torture isn’t out of line. Perhaps you can make him run around with his underwear on his head and take pictures of it. I am sure I could raise a few million dollars to compensate you for your efforts. Thank you.
Dave Bacon -When I said science, what I was referring to was the Theory of natural selection. Start with pond scum, add millions of years and presto chango we have human beings. That’s all I’m saying. Her mental capacity is a defect and evolution is rooting it out. Maybe I’m being to simplistic with the theory. I also don’t insinuate that this is new phenomenon. I’m not that naive. I could give millions of examples past and present. This suffering has been going on since the beginning of time and it will continue. My mother almost killed my brother and I about 20 years ago. I have experienced manic depression with her. So now your thinking that’s why he believes in God. Wrong. That’s why I hated God. And blamed him for everything. JQP- I actually felt alone when I didn’t believe, even though I had friends and great family members. I’ve learned to forgive and love my parents. My wife and I have been together 14 years. Through good and bad times. It’s the bad times that we actually strengthen our bond. That’s when we as people strengthen our bond with God. Not through the easy, life is all peachy times. Know what I mean. It’s why Britney Spears is having so much trouble. Everything is superficial, no deep connections to anyone.
Thank You and God bless
JQP -You recently said that the Bible is a collection of books written by superstitous men during superstitous times. What I can’t easily discount is the fact that many historians, Christian and none Christian, agree that Jesus Christ lived. He foretold his death and resurrection to his disciples. Again there is much proof to back up these claims. Why then would Christianity be so widespread. It would have and should have died with Jesus’s death. His disciples were defeated. They gave up on him. They thought he was full of shi_. The supposed messiah told us he would live. The apostle Paul took up the fight. He didn’t even fear death inside the Roman empire. Why did he become a man on fire in Christ? He was visited by Jesus Christ after his death. That is very powerful and cannot be easily dismissed.
“He foretold his death and resurrection to his disciples.”
Jesus never left a single writing. And he was not even seriously discussed until over 100 years after his death.
What first-hand account is there that he foretold his death? That was Monday morning quarterbacking, I’m afraid.
So JQP, I’m confused why the apostle Paul would risk death in the Roman empire just to spread the word. Maybe he was suicidal?
If a man is judged by risking his life to spread his gospel, yes you should add to the list of Paul, the unibomber, Charles Mason, suicide bombers, etc. Just because you risk your life doesn’t make you correct.
You’re right Dave. Conviction does not equal truth. But the apostle Paul was the same man who persecuted Jesus. Paul was a Jew who converted to Christianity after the death of Jesus. Something profound changed his heart. I think you can agree. Getting to the bottom of that change, I think, is worth researching. He left us the books of Acts, Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. These are not second hand accounts. These are from Paul who witnessed Jesus’ ressurection. He was not peddling snake oil or getting rich by selling his books to the gullible. He was just a man on fire. I don’t think you could give 1 example of someone on fire who left such an impression on humanity.
By the way, I’ll be here all week. lol I’m on vacation.
Paul did not write anything. You are taking the word of a long history of people that claimed extraordinary events that can never be prove.
Resurrection is an extraordinary claim and, thus, needs proof. Do you really want to rely on these superstition men–the monks how perpetuated these claims? You really want to base your life on ancient hearsay? Do you really believe that Islam is wrong but you, because what you’re told is different, are right?
Would you have believed this had you been brought up in Indonesia? Probably not. You believe this most likely because you were born in a Christian part of the world. You’re not from Syria, are you?
“I’m confused why the apostle Paul would risk death in the Roman empire just to spread the word. Maybe he was suicidal?”
These are not events reported by those motivated by accurate historical reporting. In fact, much of history is mixed fact with fantasy until about the 15th century.
It is improbable that this small group of originally mystics–I’m talking in proportion to the world’s population around 1 AD–are the ones who turned out to have everything right. I mean, isn’t it odd that it wasn’t the Chinese, or the Japanese, or the Africans, or the Natives of the Americas, or the Aborginals, or the Maoris of New Zealand, or the Tahitians, or…I could go on. All of these peoples have their own religion and explanations that in no way lead them to Jesus. They’re all wrong??
Isn’t it more reasonable to realize that Christianity is just one more of human’s creative (kind of) explanations for what cannot be known?
Every culture on the planet came up with different explanations for how and why the world was created. And each one is absolutist in that their culture has it exactly right and no one else does. How can that be? How can they all be right? And, interestingly enough, you’re on the right side or not mostly based on where you’re born!
Since the age of reason, science started demonstrating that not one of the creative cultural explanations was even close to being right. Not one guessed correctly how old the earth was much less the universe; not one guessed correctly that DNA existed; not one guessed correctly the those little stars were light years away; not one guessed correctly the rules of the universe that we call relativity and quantum mechanics and yet they all claim to be devine in one way or another; not one guessed correctly anything about bacteria. I could go on, but you get the point. Not one religion in the world was proven right by science. All were proven wrong bit by bit and still are being proved wrong.
Why is Christianity different?
Give me one reason why the Jews and Muslims are wrong about Jesus?
john q what happened in your life for you to ask for proof of divinity and question all things spirtual? you are without a doubt one of the most negative souls i have ever come across in my life. yes you may like to argue about these issues thats ok. when you can only see your side of an argument does that make you correct. no it does not. you need to open your mind and it will set you free. HITLER, GENGHIS KHAN,MUSSOLINI,STALIN,BIN LADEN,MANSON, and all the other murderous souls on this planet thought they were correct.they were all very negative one thought minds. these are souls that jesus gives us to test us and see what we as a human race do. lest we forget there is a fallen angel the antichrist WHO RELISHES IN THESE TURMOILS.
jq maybe all cultures and religions need to believe in something, something more than this human existence. it does not make any one culture right or wrong it just gives people hope that there is more to this life than a physical presence…
Two responses, Reggie: 1) Why is it necssary? What is wrong with this existence? (I outlined that earlier.) 2) If all religion did was address spirituality, you’d be right but they don’t. They all also attempt to explain specific events of the world in order to explain human signifiance. So, it is more than just needing something beyond this life, they also attempt to anwser all the big questions like how the world came to be, where everything is going, what happens to us when we die, why we’re here, what everything is made of (women are made of men’s ribs, by the way), why people get ill (evil spirits), why the wind blows, and so on. Actually, if you list all the things each religion attempted to address–everything from how the world began to how it ends and how to live inbetween–and checked off all things science proved it wrong, all you’re left with is a few unanswered questions. That is what you’re point out: the things left that science has not yet answered. But religion never has just been about spirituality. That is a new age twist. It is about explaining…everything.
“By the way, I’ll be here all week. lol I’m on vacation.”
I have heard of this thing called vacation 🙂
I can’t believe Paul did not write his own letters. The letters to his trusted companion Timothy, the churches that he was building up, or
Philemon the owner of the slave that shared a cell with Paul.
Did the authors of the books in the Bible have agendas? Of course they did. Much has to be taken into account when reading the Bible. The time it was written, the politics of the day, the superstitions of men and the ignorance of the day.
Weed through all of that and you will find God’s word.
Muslims believe Jews and Christians altered or perverted the text of the Torah( the 1st five books in the old testament.)They believe God gave Mohammed the Qur’an. And that through only Mohammed could it be corrected. Their view on Jesus- He was born of the virgin Mary, not divine, not killed by Jews, but rose to heaven, and will return to earth and conquer the enemies of Islam.
As I understand, Judaism is the strict following of the Torah. Kids would start memorizing the Torah between ages 6 and 10. Then if you were like JQP you would continue your studies. If not, you would learn the family biz. From 11 to 14 you would learn to disect the books. From then I believe you would ask to apprentice with a Rabbi. If he thought you were good enough. If not, you had to work the family business. Their view on Jesus- He was a great Jewish Rabbi but a false prophet who didn’t fulfill the prophecies.
These are 2 of the 3 most influential religions today. And all 3 have an opinion about Jesus Christ. That’s 3.75 billion people that believe Jesus was around. I don’t like to put numbers out there, but you know what they say. How can a billion people be wrong?
How can a billion people be wrong?
Are you really going to argue just because a bunch of people believe it, it must be true? It may be a good way to make friends, but as a way to live your life….
Not to mention the 3 billion just _didn’t_ side with. 3 billion can’t be wrong, can they?
“I have heard of this thing called vacation”
Vacation?? You get to bask in the luxurious life of academic freedom. 😉 No market timing pressures, no focus groups, no maintenance cycle support, no whiny customers. How often do you have to publish? Once a grant? 😉
“no whiny customers”
Must resist statement about my wonderful students 😉
JQP What is more tragic? Poor people in undeveloped countries who can barely afford the basics like food and water. Or the apathetic bastards living in the suburbs of our United States? The reason I ask is I think you wrote. Why would God give his children such a dangerous environment to inhabit? Sometimes dangerous is beautiful and beautful is lethal.
“Did the authors of the books in the Bible have agendas?”
No, the editors did. Constintine had a huge political agenda. And when monks weren’t sure who wrote the gospels, they assumed it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So, can you really trust the editors? For something devine, a lot of hands sure manipulated it. And if it ever was devine, it sure ain’t anymore.
Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the “Authorized” King James Bible.
What we now have in Bible-based religion, whether labeled as “Catholic”, or Protesting Catholic, known as “Protestant”, is unrecognizable form either the Hebrew religion, now known as the Jewish religion, or the church established at Jerusalem by the Apostles and disciples of Jesus. The practices of this first church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown, despite being clearly outlined in the existing New Testament. In its place are doctrines and practices first established in the first “true” Reformation of Christianity begun by Constantine.
Last I read, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, homicides (yes, they dropped dramatically from about 1 in 500 around 700 AD to about 1 in a few hundred thousand today), and illness in the suburbs beat out the 35 year life expectancy of natural standards by a long shot. Are you kidding me?? Life couldn’t be better in the world science has now provided.
The guy in the suburbs has it way better! Proof is abound.
Andrew, did you know that there are so many living past the age of 100 now that scientists no longer study them? Instead, now the target group is over 110 years of age.
You don’t think that is better than being eaten by roaming panters, dying of typhoid, being murdered by neighboring tribes, and so on? What exactly is bad about modern life? We live long, largly disease free (the exception is now old age not as children anymore), no lice, rarely a toothache, books available on every block (you know how hard it was to find a book back in 1456? And all you could get was a crumby Constantine edition), coffee shops on every corner, our infants rarely die, we have more free time than we know what to do with, and even the poorest among us are fat, not malnutritioned!
What exactly is wrong with suburan life? (Other than we’re now a bunch of whinners.)
And for anyone thinking of giving me an argument about my free time statement, if you own a Wii, PlayStation, Guitar Hero, iPod, Gameboy, computer, TV, MP3 player or any other “leisure” device, I don’t want to hear it. 😉
You know how hard it was to find a book back in 1456?
This is what I was referring to. When young Jews would learn the Torah during Jesus’ time, There was 1 book. For the entire village. It was kept in the synagogue inside the Torah ark. Pulled out once a week. Were they worse off because they didn’t have an ipod? playstation, 62″ plasma hdtv?
I doubt it.
Off the path here, I recommend the movie “I am Legend” great movie and a reference to Bob Marley.
no can do, John (imprison Bush in the cellar), because you can`t go anywhere, all streets blocked and police everywhere. thanks for not asking me to do that to Deepak (BTW, why didn`t they come together, it could save the world a few bucks.
JQP -Do you believe quantity of life is better than quality of life? Sure science has given us great understanding of our surroundings or environment. Gen 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. Gen 2:19 …He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. Sounds like the creation of science. We have been given the authority to work(research, explore, investigate) the world that we have been given. The world was perfect. Science is not. We make gains through science,of course, but these gains also highlight our failures. For example the atomic bomb.
Were they worse off because they didn’t have an ipod? playstation, 62″ plasma hdtv?
No, you missed the point. We’re better off because we have more discretionary time and those items listed are a measurement of that discretionary time. If we’re too busy farming, then we wouldn’t have those objects. We those things because they are things of our own choosing rather than forced upon us. That is the key.
We are better off because we are healthier and spend more time doing what we want: like argue about religion. (You’re not off running from a sabertooth tiger, are you? Isn’t arguing more fun? I think so.)
Do you believe quantity of life is better than quality of life?
I think both are better now by far. Again, we live longer, but moreover we spend less time hunting and gathering food and more time pursuing happiness. Now whether individuals find happiness or not is another issue, but they are freer to do so. All you can do for anyone is free them up, what they do after that is up to them. If you can’t find happiness in today’s world, then it is your own fault. Life is a blast. I’ll be 60 years old this year and because of my healthy lifestyle (lot’s of working out for many years) and regular monitoring of my bloodpressure, HDL, LDL, PSA and so forth I can keep up with any 30 year old. When I was a kid, a 60 year old had no teeth (I got all of mine) and was pretty much comdemned to die of a heart attack within the next 10 years. Because of sonagrams and an understanding of biology, my risk right now is reduced single digits.
“The world was perfect.”
What? There’s no proof of that whatsoever. That is just part of the mythology you bought into. Besides, that is a pointless comparison on your part. It doesn’t matter because you live here and now. Arguing that mankind screwed it all up because a women ate an apple is like arguing with the natives of Papua over ghosts stealing wristwatches.
And, finally, the threat that an atomic bomb has to you personally (your locality) is lower than all the immediate threats you face in the wild. You’re still safer.
“The world was perfect.”
Thanks for putting your subjective little human views on the entire universe. Me, I look out at the stars and realize I am looking back in time hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of years, and, well the universe looks the same as it does today. And I also think, gee, maybe us little pests running around on a very small rock orbiting one of hundreds of billions of stars in one of (at least) hundreds of billions of galaxies aren’t probably the whole point of a silly superstitious book written a mere few thousand years ago.
And dude if you think science is “naming things” I think you need to do some reading.
And, a personal observation on your “quality” question, Andrew: I think that attending church, or going door to door with a copy of “The Tower” (Latter Day Saints, which I know you’re not part of but is an example nonetheless), or participating in any of the sacraments, or meditating and navel gazing, or praying, are boring and, therefore, would eat into my free time. And free time is how I measure quality. It is not what you do, it is if you’re the one choosing it or not. (And the church attempting to make decisions for me restricts my freedom.) So, for me, all those things would reduce the quality of my life because they are all pointless activities designed by other humans to steer me away from the activities that focus on this life. And if you’re not focusing on this life here and now, then you’re missing out. But that’s just my opinion. If going to church is how you pursue happiness, then at least you are free to do so and that is what is most important.
Nomenclature is a part of science. When you look at the stars do you also see pond scum in your past Dave?
I don’t feel threatened by an atomic bomb. Or any other malady for that matter. All this free time. As if 1 more minute of your life matters. Could I just have 1 more minute? Then I will show the world that it has progressed. Don’t kid yourself JQP. Free time is not the answer. I trust in Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life. You trust in science for your answers. I view science as a way to engage our environment. Not a way to extend our time on this planet so that maybe some day we can move from this planet to the next. Like some episode of satr trek. Continually looking to further our existence. So that maybe after another million years our descendants will have evolved into toasters or microbes or whatever.
“Free time is not the answer.”
Enslavement is the alternative. And that’s better how?
ok we all agree free time is great. People have been known to enslave themselves with their free time. for example debt. usually financial. Yes its up to people how to use their free time. But even slaves can be free. You don’t have to be well off financially or be well educated or have the best genetic makeup to become free. Jesus Christ is the answer.
“Jesus Christ is the answer.”
If I get a second opinion on that from, say, a Rabbi or Caliph, is it valid? Should I not listen to them, too? Or do you have information beyond mere opinion that these others are not privy to?
I would encourage you to get a second opinion from a Rabbi or a Caliph. Both hold Jesus in the highest of esteem.
But I doubt they would support you on the most important point of all: that he resurrected. If all you’re saying is that Jesus’ most significant aspect was his teachings, and not his resurrection, then I can find that from many other sources, so Jesus would hardly be “the answer.” He would just be one of many. Somehow I think you’re holding him up much higher in stature than just another good teacher.
That is the core belief of Christianity. That he was resurrected. That is hard for you to believe?
But you do accept the theory of a big bang -then pond scum then human beings. Of course millions and millions of years were involved. As if that is supposed to make it more palatable for us to swallow.
Another good teacher. My fifth grade teacher Mrs. Jacobsen was a good teacher. Mozart was a good teacher. Do I hold Jesus a little higher? Yes I do. You should know that by now.
“That he was resurrected. That is hard for you to believe?”
Very. It is an extraordinary claim that no living person has ever witnessed, and therefore demands extraordinary evidence. The ones who perpetuated that claim where extremely biased and had no modern understanding of the world. They were very much inclined to fantasy.
Why would I believe medieval mythologizers?
The point is you have nothing to refute Judism and Islam other than your own opinion which is largly based on medieval writings. It is a weak point from which to run your life; Judism and Islam, as does every religion in every part of the world, has as much ground to claim rightness as you. So, I might as well go with the ghosts and wristwatches thing because it presents as much evidence as you.
The same reason you believe the big bang theory.
Very extraordinary claim that no living or dead person has ever witnessed therefore demands extraordinary evidence. You look into the heavens with ultra powerful and finite telescopes. There you see chaotic movements of meteors and thus begins a theory. A big bang. Can u trace your family tree back to mud? How embarrasing. And over here is uncle pond scum.lol That’s hilarious.
I just read “Death of a Salesman”. I can’t believe I haven’t read that book before. I read “Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell this week as well. Both good reading.
“The same reason you believe the big bang theory.”
That theory was led to by evidence not the writings of fantasizers. Such as the red shift of all planets and stars; they are undisputingly hurling away from a central point. That’s evidence, not fantasy.
I’m still laughing about poor uncle pond scum. Natural selection hasn’t been so kind to him yet.
But here is his great grandson slime bucket. He’s the one with more than 1 cell. Yippee! We’ll be human in 35 million more years. Now that’s funny
Andrew, are you saying the that repeatable proof of relativity (many times over many years) which predicted an expanding universe and was substantiated by direct observation, was not extraordinary evidence? Are you kidding? The proof of relativity is profoundly extraordinary.
“We’ll be human in 35 million more years.”
Wow, you have no background in science at all, do you? Again, a theory led to by a trail of evidence.
You could equally say, “A bunch of little bugs crawling around in my body are causing me to be sick? That’s laughable.” But guess what? It’s true. Your side said it was evil spirits.
=============================================
Bottom line: science has a good track record on delivering. A claim evolves through the process of argument until a truth is substantiated by direct evidence.
Religion has a zero track record of being right. Everything it has said so far has been proven not only wrong, but way off the mark–not even close to reality.
Which track record would you put your trust in? The one with the most proof, or the one most often wrong?
“HITLER, GENGHIS KHAN,MUSSOLINI,STALIN,BIN LADEN,MANSON, and all the other murderous souls on this planet thought they were correct.”
Dyer thinks he’s correct. So does Chopra. Are they murderous souls, too? How is it that you connect “murderous” with believing you’re correct? You don’t believe you’re correct? By your own statement you are implying that you are not correct otherwise you’d be one of us murderers, too.
Devinity is an extraordinary claim that demands challenge. It makes specific statements about many topics–homosexuality, women, salvation, etc. It further makes predections about second comings and the end of the world. Those specific things then become driving forces that cause people to intolerant with one another. That should not be challenged?
“people hope that there is more to this life than a physical presence…”
My point exactly. It means people are discontent with physical life. That is hardly “positive.” What is so wrong with this physical life? I disagree that I’m negative about life. I absolutely love this life, and stated so many times. Thus, I have no need for wishing for something better. I’m happy with the way things are.
Why are you so discontent, Reggie, to need something beyond this life?
“you are without a doubt one of the most negative souls i have ever come across in my life.”
Ouch! Thank you for your positive energy.
Science and religion will forever be antagonists to each other. Science is about searching for the truth using observation and critical thinking and is willing to amend and self correct. Religion is about having the truth. Critical thinking is replaced by faith alone. The search is over.
SpeTator
Science searches for the truth. It experiments, observes and thinks critically. It is willing to amend and self correct.
Religion has the truth. Belief and faith suspends observation and critical thinking. The search is over.
SpecTator
The search is not over. It’s a continual process. A Jewish Rabbi would call it “binding and loosing”. To bind is to forbide and to loose is to allow. The Bible is open ended. It requires discussion and engagement. Loosing and binding.
Science and religion will forever be antagonists.
Sounds like you have placed all of your faith in science.
Science is our natural curiosity about our environment.
I love science -I drive a car, I use indoor plumbing, even microwave my meals sometimes. But science could never heal the spirit. Ever. You will never invent something to heal the spirit/soul.
JQP It’s all laughable isn’t it? So many discoveries. I’m just trying to drive the point home at how ridiculous some of these theories are. And yet people take them as truth when they are theories. That’s right theories. I’m just trying to save face for you before you go and add uncle slime bucket to your family tree.
3 more days of vacation. Then ya all can go back to the way it was.
I like this life. I don’t want or need anything beyond it and the fact that it will end some time is relieving, not fearful. The last thing I want is to go on forever.
————————————————
Your words are conflicting to me JQP. If I were to dissect your statement, I would first ask why you would be relieved of your fruitful life. You obviously like it. That defies human nature to be relieved of something you enjoy. “I like my car so much I can’t wait until someone reposses it”
Do you see my logic? And to apply this to Christianity is absurd. When Jesus spoke of what we translate to be hell, he called it gehenna. Which referred to a garbage dump on the eastern side of Jerusalem. Sacrifices were made there, prisoners bodies were burned there along with other refuse. So when the Bible speaks of heaven and hell, to assume it is meaning eternity is not completely correct. When we dropped the atomic bomb on the citizens of Japan that could become hell on earth. Chernobyl, hell on earth.
“Your words are conflicting to me JQP. If I were to dissect your statement, I would first ask why you would be relieved of your fruitful life.”
One thing I’m attempting to provoke is how most who talk about immortality are usually not really used (trained?) to thinking in really big numbers. At least, I don’t think a lot of people consider the implications of magnitudes like quintillions or octillions.
If I could live (and not lose my friends and loved ones in the process) for 200 or even 500 years, I’m fine with that. But that’s earthly life, not some mushy gray existence some all Nirvana; or romping around with harems like Islam thinks; or golden streets with hovering angels like the Christians imagine. I don’t desire any of those scenarios because they are really maddening when think about it: doing something like one of those for, say, 256 octillion years?? No thanks. Even a time at the beach that’s way too long.
>/b>
The kind of immortality most spirituality talks about lacks the robust rough and tumble of life. It’s always expressed as an extension of what people desire (which makes it really suspiciously like wishful thinking)–doing the same thing for way too long of a time. That is really what I am addressing. Eternal bliss does not seem appealing; one state forever. Yet, that is what is being said: all the struggles of life disappear, meaning they don’t like the struggles. Conflict seems a necessary component of humanity. It’s really amusing when the folks who Dyer appeals to say how much the eschew it. For example, HAGDS clearly is not comfortable with conflict and I’m sure would never write a story along the lines of, say, Macbeth with all its violence. Yet, even her poem about caterpillars and tumble bugs centers around conflict (disagreement) and I’d bet she didn’t even realize it. No conflict, no story. Conflict is actually unavoidable, yet the big promise (I would call it the big lie) is we will all descend into a state of non-conflict upon our deaths. Every religion and spiritual notion of the afterlife that I know about all have no conflict. That is a very undesirable state to sustain for the lengths of time suggested.
Now, regarding the struggles of life, let me be clear on another point: if the struggles are here randomly, I’m fine with that. They evolved as the evolved and I fully accept it and even like it. But if you tell me something designed it, it’s different. To use an analogy, if I’m driving my car a series of unfortunate thing happen to the car on a single trip (e.g. flat tire, broken windshield, overheating, etc.) and each could easily be explained as a discreet independent event (random and coincidental), then I’m not going to be upset. They’re just random events and like the weather there’s no point in getting in a tiff about it. But if each event was caused because of the design of the car, now I’m pissed. Someone is responsible for this mess.
That is where I’m coming from. I don’t hate the struggle of life because I believe to be randomly evolved. But in the context of a designer, then I rail on the notion of struggle.
If yellow fever (picking one at random) came into being because of randomly evolving events, it is understandable.
But if something delibrately put yellow fever here, how can you feel nothing but disgust for that decision? We’re not talking about a skinned knee when I talk about struggle, I’m talking about nature’s most disgusting dangers.
To say it is all a test would make sense if struggle really were nothing but a mere skinned knee or unfortunate financial events here and there. But when you consider, for example, what children endured during the black plague it’s on a whole new scale. Vomiting blood and convulsing to death within 3 hours in front of your children (that is what happened with the worst strains in 1348 and there are many anecdotes of children being homeless after watching both parents die this way) is a method of teaching you something?? Come on, people. That’s actually really morbid.
Again, bubonic plague as a random evolution of a life form, it is what it is and you can’t get upset about it. But if someone designed it?? There’s no convincing me of the morality in that.
My wife is a registered nurse in the oncology department at a local hospital. 40% of her patients have cancer, 60% are med surg. Meaning aids/hiv, other communicable diseases, etc…
One time I brought her dinner, she was dealing with a man who was brought in out of a ditch. Father of a 9 year old boy. Husband to a beautiful wife. He was an alcoholic at the time. His wife and child came to visit him. He screamed to his wife and son that all he wanted to do was leave and kill himself. Who do we blame? God, ourselves, random events. How do we rate suffering? The Bubonic plague was terrible. Ebola -terrible. Most Christian music -terrible. Like you pointed out, this life is like a blip on the screen. Morbid or not. We are in this together scientist, christian, tom cruise, mormon, etc….
C’mon even you have to admit that’s funny. You are willing to trace your ancestry back to mud.
What happened to spectator. Maybe you should change your name to participant and share in the conversation. Oh and I agree JQP, we do need conflict. no conflict no growth. know conflict know growth. How’s that for a generic message. Put that on your bumper.lol
“You are willing to trace your ancestry back to mud.”
If you met some of the trailer trash in my family, even you might reconsider that thought.
Maybe I would put more faith in evolution if I understood how the tsetse fly ended up flying around a hippo’s as- and I ended up discussing religion on a computer. Since we both came from the same boiling mud.
lol You do have a sense of humor.
This seems appropo. The religious get offended when you challange them (you’re more affable than most, Andrew, so that is not a poke at you) and physists don’t when you attack physics. They relish it.
The comment around 6:10 I think gets at the heart of some of the emotions that arise in these discussions: “Have you even considered the possibility that you have wasted your life on this stuff [religion]?”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890
Obviously I have not watched the video in it’s entirety yet. But I will. First I want to know who the four horsemen are? All 4 are physicists I assume. Noone is there to give credence to religion I presume. I, like them love a good fight. It is true that many other christians do not. That is a shame. Because they are either not a true believer, just going to church because their parents did, or whatever the reason may be.
The true believer actively lives like Jesus Christ. He was always challenged. His answers were usually in the form of a parable. He was most offended when teachers of religion made it difficult for others to learn.
I will go back to the video now
That’s hilarious. They are talking about religious leaders being offended. And they say to me “Have you considered that maybe you have wasted your life on this (religion)? It sounds like they may get offended if were to ask them., “Do you really believe you and the tsetse fly are cousins?” lol.
I believe all life has enough similar attributes to be joined at some point. Your setse fly: Does it have a heart beat? Does it breath? Does it seek out food? Does it attempt to survive? Does it recognize and avoid danger? Does it reproduce? Do the males have an attraction for females? Does it have eyes? Does it have legs? Does it smell out its food? Can it distinguish between good food and bad based on smell? Does it have a blood stream? Does it have digestive organs? Does it metabolise its food? Does it have a tongue with which it tastes?
That belief is based on observable evidence, not any kind of wishful imagination.
========================================
By the way, I think you suffer from a common misunderstanding about scientific theory. “Theory” is not a guess or an unsubstantiated claim, but a predivictive model. In science you can claim all you want but that does not make it a theory. To theorize means to create a conceptual model that predictes accurately specific events that can be tested. It does not necessarily prove the underlying point, but it shows enough predictablity to be accepted as a probable model.
It is very different from just proclaiming.
Does not all life have DNA and RNA?
Isn’t DNA evidence that all life has something in common? Does that evidence not strongly suggest, not prove, that all life came from at least similar physical origins?
“Religion has the truth.”
SpecTator, that is a bold statement. I would say they proclaim truth rather than seek it, but since all religions say something different, which one are you referring to? They all can’t be right because there are so many varations that contradict each other. If you’re saying all religions believe they hold the truth, then that is very different.
This is why it’s so important to keep working on that family tree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22612314/?gt1=10755
by the way, how do you highlight the web address?
also, how do I incorporate another person’s sentence into my paragraph?
The highlight is automatic. The browser recognizess the “http://” bit and highlights it for it.
To quote someone, I do it in a pretty primitive way: Highlight their sentence, copy (CTRL+c), and paste it into the post box (CTRL+v). If you want it italicize it or embolden it, wrap their sentence with these things:
<i> sentence </i>
–or–
<b> sentence </b>
Then their sentence will come up like this or like this.
Oh, and smiley faces:
semi-colon dash right-parenthesis gives you 😉
and colon dash right-parenthesis gives you 🙂
I so wish that the browser designers picked something other than that seventies smiley face. It’s so embarassing.
Highlight their sentence, copy (CTRL+c), and paste it into the post box (CTRL+v). If you want it italicize it or embolden it, wrap their sentence :-“
still workin on the smiley face. Not sure what dash right is
🙂
Finally got it. Something so trivial. Now I can really enhance my arguments. 🙂
http://www.atheists.org/conference/
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.html#sacrifice
Believe that Chopra’s claim of levitation is merely a peripheral point, to not be taken literally, and not central to his claim of healing? Or that he’s not about money? This is a different multi-million dollar lawsuit from the one I brought up earlier.
“A significant episode in Chopra’s career occurred in 1991, when the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article by Chopra, Triguna and Hari Sharma, “Letter From New Delhi: Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Modern Insights Into Ancient Medicine.”
Criticism from the Journal’s readers over the validity of the article’s argument led the associate editor to write a rebuttal in which he criticized the financial stake the authors [Chopra, et al] had in validating and selling their products, the Hindu belief in yogic flying and the basis of Chopra’s ayurveda in TM (Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1997). Chopra responded by filing a $30 million suit in which he accused the Journal of defamation and bigotry. Chopra’s lawyer claims that the suit was settled for an undisclosed amount (Newsweek, October 20, 1997, p. 57); some critics, however, state that the suit was dismissed.
Chopra split with TM in 1993, allegedly because the Maharishi attempted to control his speaking and writing (Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1997). In that same year, Chopra published his breakthrough work, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old. After an appearance on Oprah, Chopra sold 130,000 copies of the book in one day (Newsweek, October 20, 1997, p. 54).
Chopra goes after more big money.
Deepak’s Days in Court
Published: August 18, 1996
In Deepak Chopra’s 1995 best seller, “The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success,” the mind-body theorist from India advocates bestowing a prayer or flower on every person you meet. But Chopra uses much tougher tactics when he gets slammed in the media: the multimillion-dollar lawsuit, or threat thereof. Late last month, Chopra sued The Weekly Standard — a Washington-based conservative magazine owned by Rupert Murdoch — over a July cover story that criticized Chopra’s work and personal life. The $35 million claim says that the writer, Matt Labash, libeled Chopra by alleging, among other things, that he hired a San Francisco prostitute in 1991.
Chopra, it turns out, is no stranger to the ways of western litigiousness. Over the past five years his lawyers have filed suit against or issued legal rumblings to The Journal of the American Medical Association, New York magazine and The Washington Post. (Next up, says Michael Flynn, currently Chopra’s top litigator, The Daily Mail — a British tabloid that published a story in June about the Duchess of York’s fondness for Chopra. Chopra may also target any sources who decline to recant.) The actual litigation results have been small — a $194 million suit against JAMA was dismissed — but Chopra’s high-pressure tactics do get attention. The Washington Post, which reported The Standard’s prostitute allegations, was pressured by Flynn and agreed to run a second article, which included Chopra’s claim that he was out of the country at the time of the episode. “Publicly, Chopra says he will not defend himself,” says one journalist threatened with a suit. “But he hires high-priced pit bulls to do the job for him.”
Chopra declines to comment, calling Flynn (via fax) a “spiritual warrior.” The warrior says he is just doing his job. “I’ve often defended the little guy. Versus Murdoch, Chopra is the little guy.”
“Religion has the truth”.
Actually, I was being sarcastic there. The point being that once you have certainty there is no motivation to search anymore. In fact you become pretty defensive. Lately I’ve been hearing a lot of complaints about Christianity being “under attack”. (If you want to be “attacked” try not being a Christian and run for political office in this country.) My intention was to to compare the growth of knowledge in all disiplines to a religious book that was written a very long time ago in a very different time and says, “Here’s all you need to know.” No need for further examination. No need for further observation or contempaltion. The search is over. Believe it or suffer the consequences. Of course there is room for interpertation and discussion, “loosening and binding”… which help explain the many Christian sects. Yeah, a little sarcasm again.
I remember when I began to “lose faith” in the bible. It’s been quite awhile so excuse me if I don’t quote book chapter and verse… I could look it up but it’s late so I’ll use my pale memory of the passage. If it is too far off I am sure I’ll hear about it.
It has to do with transporting the ark of the covenant. One tribe has the resposiblity of carrying the ark. I believe it was the tribe of Levi. Well as they were carrying the ark they stumbled on some rough terrain and the ark tipped. Instinctly someone who was not of the tribe of Levi reach out and touched it to prevent it from falling to the ground. Since he was not allowed to touch the ark God immediately “smote” him. Didn’t seem fair to me. I believe in fairness.
I wouldn’t allow a two year old child die of cancer if I could prevent it. God allows it. How can I be more compassionate than a loving God? I can’t.
SpecTator
All excellent points, SpecTator. It’s interesting that you are coming from a position as a former Christian. I like your line about “believe my bible or die” (my interpretation).
“How can I be more compassionate than a loving God?”
The benevolent God concept is a conundrum to me because it is obvious that we can be more compassionate than either the biblical description or what we see in nature. It is not a very high bar to clear, to be honest. You just don’t see a lot of compassion in nature’s creatures and an abundance of violence. I think that if one were to objectively research nature (assuming the researcher has never see it before) in order to ascertain the character of its designer, I would think he/she would have to come to the conclusion that the designer leans towards violence and very little towards compassion. I think that is what Christianity addresses with the old testament god. They acknowledge that nature has a lot of violence and attempts to explain it. New age, on the other hand, puts on rosy glasses and pretends it doesn’t exist.
So, if there is a god, there is nothing at all to suggest it is benevolent only. It may have some components of benevolence, but it would be anything but pure benevolence. And it is just beyond me how some can then worship what they’ve described. But then I think this ideal of God was entirely dreamed up by humans in search of an explanation for existence and then further polluted by those with political aspirations. Thus, what you wind up with is a very flawed, contradicting description of God and no one in their right mind would worship it if they really thought about it. Instead, most “thinking about it†is actually just rationalizing a forgone conclusion. For example, phrases like “The Lord works in mysterious ways,†is rationalizing and backwards logic. (This phrase is used when someone shows evidence that there is no god, like when a child says, “Why is God letting me die?â€. It suggests that what we think of as contradiction is all really part of some master plan that we cannot comprehend. It rationalizes and evades the question.) That phrase assumes there is a god first then works backwards to say that any evidence to the contrary must then be the work of that god. It works from a conclusion backwards to address the evidence rather than the other way around. New age has similar phrases and the same logic.
Regarding the big bang and the “how can it come from nothing†argument. While I pointed out that physicists actually claim that known laws break down at the point of singularity and are often silent on anything before that, the argument directly applies to God as well.
If there is a God, then there are also only 2 possible choices for its existence: 1) It came from nothing, or 2) it always existed. If either are true, then the same can be true for the universe as it relates to the big bang. If God sprung from nothing, why couldn’t the universe (big bang from nothing)? If God just always existed, why couldn’t the universe (repeated big bang and universal collapse scenario)? The idea of God does not solve this problem of how something comes into existence in the first place.
I agree JQP, that if I can say where did the big bang come from than I can apply the same question to God. Where the heck did he come from? Momma and poppa god? But just like the big bang, were not trying to solve where they came from, but where we came from. I guess I do feel a little better in my heart that I was made with love and intent rather than gurgling mud. I have been struggling with the dna is common among all of us. I have been reading about dna and other theories. Even typed in “origin of species” into google. Interestingly, mein kampf came up as alternative. Downloaded Christian Science by Mark Twain from project gutenberg. I got a little side tracked.
————————————————-
Spectator- I know what you mean. These passages are wicked, cruel, idiotic, offensive, etc…
The books in the bible are inspired by God. Written by man. We could take this blog and put it in there. I would call it the book of Andrew, because I’m so full of myself. Is it all true? Is it devoid of ego, agenda? of course not. What I’m saying is you must wrestle with it, not yourself but with others as well. We never fully understand and that is our relationship with the word.
To janet Silde: there is absolutely nothing that can or has been proven by modern day science or philosophy that says that God and science cannot coincide, having a science major and philosophy minor, i know and have studied that nothing says that God and science cannot coexist peacefully, even evolution and God can coexist peacefully
in response to jqp and andrew: a theory of the big bang integrates ow level quantum physics, in which i have studied that there have been reported cases that low level energy particles and matter have come into existence from nothing, thats right, nothing. Another possibility is that black holes do not destroy matter and energy, rather, it slowly and efficiently converts it into an super-ultra-compact form of matter, which becomes heated by itself, so much that it eventually explodes, into a universe. Now, the accumulation of low level energy from nothing does contradict the first theory of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed) but doesn’t this mean that any one of our laws or theories are flawed as well? what makes me think that a 100% of the time when i drop a pencil it will hit the floor, cant it dart across the room and hit the wall? why not? what makes us think that gravity is a 100% right always? well i’m going into philosophy now, but philosophy is where metaphysics came from and metaphysics is where science came from, so it is actually relevant, but doesn’t this point out to you that our theories may be wrong? on an additional side, i do consider myself Christian, but regrettably i have not found myself very religious lately, but aside from that, no scientist or philosopher has found a single way to disprove God, so it is 100% possible that he does exist, nothing is preventing Him from existing.
Well, lalo, as DB pointed out and I know from working with theoretical physicists, science doesn’t operate on the idea of 100% right on anything, but in probabilities—especially in QM.
So, science says it is improbable that your pencil will not behave typically, not that it is impossible. The same for your other examples including the famous 2nd law. That fact that you speak in absolutes gives me the impression you’re not trained or work in science, but I could be mistaken. (That is not to be taken as pejorative in any way. Just an impression.)
â€low level energy particles and matter have come into existence from nothing…â€
I would be very interested in a QM scientist’s response to that comment. You could be right, I don’t have enough QM background to refute it. But what are your credentials regarding science? (It matters whether you are expressing a layman’s opinion or coming from a position understanding.)
“I guess I do feel a little better in my heart that I was made with love and intent rather than gurgling mud.”
I understand. I’m sure it is a similar feeling to how I felt when I believed there was a Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. In general, reality always turns out to be colder and harder than what we would otherwise wish for. So, I understand the need for comforting thoughts. But that does not mean they are based in reality.
http://www.samharris.org/site/the_reason_project/
Here’s is the bible passage I was referring in my last post.
1 Chronicles 13:7-11: “And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart…And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God. And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day.”
I think it impossible for us to understand the purpose of these violent and vengeful bible passages now because our sensibilities are so different. They were written for their time, not ours.
I would argue, however, that if the bible was divinely inspired that all of it’s text should be timeless. Clearly, all are not.
In the arts, and the sciences, we are taught the power and strength, and even the great beauty of simplicity. “When the answer is found, it will be simple.” The temptation of man is to complicate and elaborate(and blog?). In this respect the bible has man’s fingerprints all over it. A lot of great stories, however, and a few good movies too. “God created man because He loves stories”.
SpecTator
Here is something I posted a while back in some other fourms. Since it is appropriate to this one, I thought I’d share it here. I received quite a number of positive responses to it mostly from like minded folks, of course, but most interesting from some doing research on very similar premises. That surprised me mostly because I thought my observation was slightly unique, but I guess others noticed it, too.
Anyway, here it is:
====================================================
First, let me state that I do not have a background in any mental health industry and this observation is purely based on anecdotes and opinion. My purpose for this post is to draw a comparison between how an individual views external events as related to the self vs. the advice of new age spirituality regarding universal significance.
Many years ago I had an in-law diagnosed with schizophrenia. It was of a severe nature and included multiple personality disorder (MPD). Schizophrenia is commonly believed to be MPD, but it is not. Schizophrenia is a category of mental disorders all having to do with incorrect perceptions of reality. At that time, we as a family learned through her diagnosis that a characteristic of schizophrenia was that the inflicted incorrectly viewed themselves as the object of external events that were in fact completely unrelated to them. For example, it was Halloween and the neighbors hung toy spiders and other decorations out in their windows. My inflicted in-law saw this as something targeted towards her specifically. Or when there was an unexpected change in weather, she interpreted this has having to do with her. We were told that this was a typical symptom of schizophrenia: giving one’s self great significance in relation to the rest of the world; a it-is-happening-to-me way of thinking, to rephrase it. Basically, they see themselves in the center of some large-scale drama and are being singled out by the universe.
Now, you’re probably thinking that where I’m going with this is to imply those with spiritual tendencies are somehow headed towards schizophrenia. I am not. I do not believe there is anything insane about imagining the various possibilities about our existence. But it could be said that the health of one’s thinking is measured partly by how one relates the universe to one’s self. In other words, keeping one’s perspective in the face of large events is seen as stability. Again, that does not imply that going the other way means any kind of sickness, but it does suggest that assigning large-scale significance to events could be interpreted as losing one’s perspective and not really a healthy alternative.
When I hear such self-proclaimed spiritual leaders such as Ram Dass, Wayne Dyer, or Deepak Chopra speak, I am struck by the similarities to schizophrenic symptoms when they say to us that universal events do indeed occur in relation to one’s self. Ram Dass tells us that everyone you meet you picked in the spiritual world before you were born. Dyer and Chopra point out how nothing happens by accident and that everything that happens to you happens with universal purpose. That every event is some test or mechanism designed to teach you something. In this context, if my son is stricken by some terminal disease, it is the universe teaching me love and kindness. (I cannot let that go without stating what an insensitive thought that actually is, in my opinion, regardless of their likely protests.) They tell us that the universe is carefully orchestrating every detail around each of us specifically for each us.
This encourages one to see themselves at the center of the universe and assign overwhelmingly dramatic significance to the smallest of occurrences. To me this is a profound loss of perspective and, thus, a self-deluding guide for handling personal tragedy. I realize they intend this to be a guide based in sensitivity by seeing some loving divinity behind each event. They believe that if we see that everything happens because it is all going somewhere wonderful, that we can relax. But then this directly contradicts another one of their proclamations: “Don’t sweat the small stuff, because it is all small stuff.†If every action I take and every word I utter has universal consequences for someone else, how can that be “small stuff?†And, moreover, how can I keep it in perspective with such a great burden? After all, I’m playing a role in carrying out the universe’s master plan, whatever that it is. Basically, everything that happens around me is all about me.
It seems to me that a superior method is to view events as not really having all that great of a significance beyond their local environment. Once I realize that the entire universe is not setting little traps in my path designed to teach me a lesson, the less I have in common with someone who in fact cannot cope with the world—and for a very similar line of reasoning. In fact, the more focused I am on the local event, and the less universal significance I give it, the better equipped I am to deal with it and overcome it. I could say that not giving this dramatic significance to everything that happens is actually a healthier way of living; that the less importance I give to unverifiable claims of spiritual manipulation, the more I am moving towards a healthier state of mind better suited for life’s ups and downs. When I realize I am not at the center of the universe, the better handle I have on reality.
Why do I loath Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra so much when they are so well meaning? Even DB posted early on that he had “nothing against the guy [Dyer].†What would I have against them?
It is because they have so much in common with faith healing preachers. Those who hold revivals and have their stooges rise from wheelchairs or claim the blind can see when the adopt faith. Dyer and Chopra out-and-out say that your physical health will improve by becoming spiritual—by adopting their faith. This is an unsubstantiated claim, for one. Moreover, they cast traditional medical practice in a bad light. They encourage you to be distrustful of your doctor and western medicine. While I think it is absolutely appropriate to question your doctor and get second and third opinions, being distrustful of medicine in general encourages some to do what Christian Scientists do: stand by and pray while someone dies rather than seeking physical treatment for them. They wait for the universe to heal them. Their advice therefore has dangerous consequences. They are taking reckless chances with others, but because they believe they are putting out “positive energy†they believe only good can come from it. (A very superstition not to mention childish position.)
You’d think then that these self-proclaimed gurus would be more careful with their advice. But let me share an anecdote that I read about, and you may have too, a few years ago. There was a women’s movement that publicly claimed their association with new age philosophy. Specifically, they claimed that HIV had no relationship to AIDS and that it was a myth perpetuated by the pharmaceutical industry. Their distrust was encouraged by the new age gurus. As a consequence, these HIV infected women refused AZT treatment and, more importantly, refused to have their children tested for AIDS. Well, the leader of this group, who is HIV infected, gave birth twice both long after her HIV diagnosis. Her first child, who she refused to have tested for AIDS or HIV, then later died at about 3 years of age. The cause? AIDS. She refused to believe it and got other opinions. All turned out to be AIDS. She was dead wrong and it cost her her child’s life. The movement has since broken up last I read.
These are the consequences of new age advice. It is a great injustice to me and is a form of malpractice similar to faith healers. That is why I despise them so much.
If their only message was “be good to one another” (which knuckleheads Bill and Ted gave similar advice), then I would agree with it strongly. But they go way beyond simple positive attitudes. They make claims that science backs them that these mental attitudes create “fields” of “energy” that have magical healing powers (i.e., raise your serotonin levels); that you can reverse your physical age; that disease can be cured through a connection to god; that you can manifest anything you desire; and your financial well being will improve, to boot. That crosses an ethical line.
Final statistics. I wrote some computer code that pulled some statistics from this site (just for fun). (So DB doesn’t think I was poking around his site: it just parsed a local HTML copy.) I posted way more than I thought. So, I think I’ve probably responded to every challenge and/or question I thought was meant for me and surly explained everything I could. Also, I was curious about the post count curve for 2007. Here’s what it generated:
Total 2007 posts: 1124
Aug 296 posts. 26%
Oct 254 posts. 22%
Sep 228 posts. 20%
Nov 175 posts. 15%
Dec 105 posts. 9%
Mar 20 posts. 1%
May 14 posts. 1%
Jun 14 posts. 1%
Jul 11 posts. <1%
Jan 3 posts. <1%
Feb 2 posts. <1%
Apr 2 posts. <1%
========================================
By individual (2006 – 2008):
A 1
AB 1
abby 3
alan 1
andrew 40
angelessence 1
Anthony 1
areuwired 3
artfuldodger 1
Been 1
Bill 1
Blind 1
Brad 2
Catherine 1
cesar 1
Chancery 1
chirs 2
clarence 2
clsr 5
Craig 1
dan 2
Dave 48
David 8
Dr. 1
DrugfreeHippie 2
E 1
elwizardo 6
Eva 7
Francesca 3
frank 2
Fred 1
FreetoBe 1
frog 20
Gary 53
Gdavid 1
George 1
Gerry 1
Good 1
greg 1
HA 5
hana 40
havAgr8Day 44
HavAgr8Day…Shhhhh… 37
HavAGr8Day….Shhhhhhh 14
HavAGr8Day….Shhhhhhh 29
j.a. 4
James 1
janet 2
janna 1
jayson 3
jday 3
Jenine 1
JMB 1
Jodee 65
joe 1
JoeG 14
John 8
JohnQPublic 456
Jorel 1
jose 2
Joules 1
Just 1
Kate 22
KP 4
lalo 1
Lana 1
Lawrence 2
Lin 1
Lina 2
lm 1
månesteiner 12
mantoman 2
Max 9
MC 7
m.e. 12
Metallicajoe 16
Michael’sword 3
ministersdaughter 2
Modeeb 1
mr 1
nez 9
NihilistX 1
Paul 1
PH 2
Randy 2
Rare_Diamond 2
reggie 8
Richard 1
RJ 1
Robert 3
ronda 2
sheila 1
Shhhhh… 20
SpecTator 5
Stacy 1
Steve 1
susieQ 1
Swanny 1
tac 1
TERRIA 1
Tessa 3
Thomas.M 2
Thumperings 1
Tim 14
Timewilltell 3
Toddmeister 1
tom 2
tony 1
Trish 1
VB 1
WAYNE 1
WH 2
What’sYourPoint? 5
WhoKnows 12
tac 1
TERRIA 1
Tessa 3
Thomas.M 2
Thumperings 1
Tim 14
Timewilltell 3
Toddmeister 1
tom 2
tony 1
Trish 1
VB 1
WAYNE 1
WH 2
What’sYourPoint? 5
WhoKnows 12
William 1
Wim
windiK 1
Wu 13
yada 1
yo 1
Zer0 76
=========================================
Again, just thought it might be interesting.
So, for anyone I’ve offended, I sincerely apologize. For anyone who feels a need to yell back at me, you have every right. My personal email address is
My best to all,
Ray
Hi John , Hi Ray! Talk to you later, that`s another beginning of a Thursday morning. In the meantime thanks for the refreshing above.
This was my very first blog and I don’t believe I’ve ever had so much fun. It’s been the ride of a lifetime. I have now discovered some other blogs, but nothing compares to the depth, range, intelligence and spirit of this one. Thank you Dave Bacon and all who participated for allowing me to be part of something very special. Somebody should publish this one. Farewell and good luck to all.
Max
Michael’sword
artfuldodger
Good Grief
Wu tzu
Is it something that I said? (I am the center of the universe 🙂 (will the smiley manifest?)
Ray, Max, and HaV too, I am debating between me and myself whether, maybe, the blog-wars are not slightly better than this good-goodbye that`s happening here.
Anyway, my belated response to your comment,Ray, about Schizophrenia and New Age philosophy. Schiz. and mental health are poles of a continuum (Freud) ranging from the serious psychotic states (schiz. and bi-polar) through personality disorders, and neurosis. That is old news; and what it means (roughly stated) that the “abnormal” is contained in the “normal” potentially. Hence the association that you make between psychotic thinking and the other thing is not so shocking, it is there. BUT there is a very important dividing line, of course: in the sick state the person regresses to an infantile egocentic mode of being and dissociates from “reality” (especially from other people and from his-self) as a defence mechanism (the only one they could fall back on). When Deepak Chopra suggests that “you are not in the world, the world is in you”, I understand that he refers to the meta-non-material paradigms of a person`s being, or more simply put, the way they view life and the world, which dictate their thoughts, feelings and actions. For example: if (b/c of, mainly, past conditioning) I see the world as a not so friendly place, I then may react accordingly to people and situations (and still not render myself to a formal diagnosis of being floridly psychotic or paranoid).
So then, is my boss really out to get me or what.
I now remember that I, too, left this blog once. In the meantime, que sera, sera.
Hana
hana
HanA.
hello, again. I’m back…I haven’t got any smarter, but I’m back none the less…people keep coming and going, but I can always count on JQP to keep things rolling…
I work at a book store now…and Dr. Dyer has a big section…and so does God…and so does Dr. Suess…and I’ve read a little about them all…
God is the smartest by a landslide–with Dr. Dyer coming in a close third…
Now this is what I’ve learned…there are so many things that are true, and so many lies, that we as humans are not going to be able to sort it out before we die…I would urge to people to concentrate on the basics, such as, “kindness, generosity, teaching, loving, forgiving”, and so on…Just be true, don’t lie. Truth may somehow find you.
People like JQP are gifted by God with intellect. This intellect is programmed to doubt things that are not readily physically available to the human senses. That is genius. Therefore we are programmed to seek truth…to prove things…to TEST THINGS…we are created in God’s image…sometimes He tests me…I don’t mind…I do the same…just whatever you do, don’t stop being true.
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to get this deep on a Dyer posting, but…actually I’m done. This is already longer than I intended. bye for now.
vacation is over. I,m back to my rat race responsibilities. Anyway, I want to start sharing my experience at church every week. We started a new series titled “twisted”. We sang songs, watched an illusionist perform some good tricks, then the pastor talked about the invisible world(like microscopic bacteria) affecting the visible world(like us getting sick). We know bacteria is there yet we can’t see it. How can we see or know when the truth is being twisted? All we need is a rear view mirror. An example would be the infamous nazi’s that have been brought up in this blog before.
Looking back, how could good citizens have been convinced to plan and build an execution chamber so massive. Knowing that the purpose was to kill an entire race of people. How could they believe that this was right? Dont’ kid yourself, the nazi’s weren’t all idiots or bad people. I bet there were many good people involved in a bad scheme and convinced they were doing what was right. Just like a random congregation that was led to believe that slavery was good because it’s in the bible.
Good characteristics can be twisted slightly into the most hated and lethal forms. Pride, lust, anger, envy, greed, sloth, and gluttony.
Yes, how can good people participate in atrocities like extermination and slavery. We think of Hitler as evil personified but he didn’t and couldn’t do it alone. Even at it’s height of power the Nazi party was a relatively small political group. So how did it happen that millions of good Germans were willing to kill and to die?
In this election year as we listen to the candidates explain why we should vote for them as our “leaders”, I am reminded of a Bob Dylan lyric, “Don’t follow leaders”.
My patriotism was challenged by my brother because I did not supported the Iraq war. I chose to not follow our “leaders”. I bet a lot good Germans killed and died for no other reason than that they made a different choice.
Everything deserves our scrutiny. Everything. Science. History. Religion. Everything. The truth is tough. It will survive any amount of poking and prodding and testing. We have the right, indeed the obligation to question. This may be more difficult to do in spiritual or religious matters but I see no reason to give them a free pass. Belief without proof is pretty thin stuff. Every so often we should hang a question mark on all our beliefs.
It is certianly easy to “twist” things.
I worked with a guy who was a born again Christian and he would bring his bible to work everyday to read it and discuss it at breaktimes. One day he was telling me about a time he had to disipline his young son for saying Hell. His son had stepped in a hole and playfully said, “Help me! I’m falling into Hell”. This was the context of his son saying Hell. He didn’t say it as an explective or tell his dad to “Go to Hell”. Nevertheless he said the word Hell and so he needed to be punished. As the guy explained, he took his belt off and let his son have a few good whacks. Obviously reading the Holy Book didn’t give him the insight to recognize the difference. What wisdom and understanding did he learn for all his reading of the bible? None in my estimation.
Teaching our childern not to swear is appropriate parenting… but things can easily get “twisted”.
Our democracy requires us to participate with intellect and reason. It requires critical thinking. It won’t survive if we all simply choose to line dance. Should we require any less from our religious and spiritual beliefs?
“Faith is a fine invention
For gentleman who see
But microscopes are prudent
In an emergency!”
Emily Dickinson
SpecTator
â€It is certianly easy to ‘twist’ things…Obviously reading the Holy Book didn’t give him the insight to recognize the difference.”
Actually, it did. Your cohort got it right as his actions were perfectly in accord with the bible. Had he really taken its advice he would have gone that extra step and stopped his swearing for good.
Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.
================================
So, if your son gets out of line, the “good book†says you must publicly embarrass him then kill him. How is it that that new agers find the bible compassionate? I know they only look for the good in anything, but isn’t that at the expense of reality? Is it truly wise to see something as you wish it and not as it is? If that is true, then you would let John Gacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy) be your babysitter because you only saw the good in him and not as he really was.
And do Christian children really study Hosea in Sunday school? (I never when to Sunday school.) But then a lot of the bible seems inappropriate for children. And yet the religious right complain about secular TV, movies and hip-hop lyrics. Ha! The bible makes them look absolutely tame.
===============================
Would you read and discuss these passages with your children?
Hosea 13
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.
Genesis 19:32-36Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Numbers 31
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Leviticus 24:16
Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Exodus 31:15
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
==================================
And ever the compassion towards the female:
Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
==================================
Do these passages sound divinely inspired to you? Are these the things a compassionate god would say? Andrew, how do you account for the divinity of these statements?
I love what craig said on November 10th of 2006.
“I love Wayne Dyer. He has helped thousands of people. I guess we’re all dopes. Have a great life!”
I will Craig 🙂 and I couldn’t agree with you no more. We are all dopes 🙂
Just in case anyone wondered what I was doing back. I manage my blogs through an RSS reader, so every time you update this site it pops up and I see that last entry right away (I don’t have to get on and browse to Dave’s site).
For newbies, google “RSS reader” and find one to download. (I use Linux not Windows so I can’t make a recommendation for Windows.) The RSS reader lets you access multiple web sites–news, blogs, whatever–in one window and every time one of those sites gets something new it tells you and you can read it right away without getting on your internet browser. I’d be happy to help and explain to anyone how to set it up if you wish. Just email me or post here and I’ll give you the instructions for adding DB’s site to your reader.
Basically, I’m trying to stop hogging all the posts and I wanted let anyone know how they could contact me should they want to vent in private. However, if a post pops up that looks appropriate for me to respond to, I’ll still do so. After all, we’ve had some pretty good points going back and forth. But I’m just going to try and not fill this site up with all my views so that others can put theirs out there. Just a clarification so you know that I still see your posts as they pop up.
Forgive my overbearing need to write. This is simply an effort to keep things rolling…
One of the issues not fully explored here is that science and religion/spirituality can coexist. For the sake of typing and verbosity, I will lump religion and new age spiritualism (including Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and all its other forms) together as “theism.†Typically, the distinction between spiritualism and religion is dogma, which new age spiritualists tend to view, rightly in my opinion. as intolerant and oppressive towards those who are different. Spiritualists look for the tolerant points in religion, the bible and the Abrahamic god (i.e., the common monotheistic view of Islam, Judaism and Christianity) in an effort to find agreement. Surly, a noble goal to be all inclusive. A point that typically arises in that inclusive effort is that science, too, holds many truths and therefore can also be accepted into their family of ideas. For example, some say there is no reason not to believe that a supernatural being didn’t spark evolution. But there is a very fundamental misunderstanding this notion fails to account for: speculative conclusions–not to be confused with speculative ideas.
It has been said that science deals with the realm of the physical and does not accept anything that cannot be based on physical proof and, therefore, there is room for theology or ideas that explore the non-physical. Here for example Frog states, “…his intellect is programmed to doubt things that are not readily physically available to the human senses.â€, suggesting that the position of science is to not believe anything beyond the senses. Actually, that is not true. I and many other atheists as well as scientists very much believe in the strong possibility of things beyond our senses. In fact, I’m pretty certain things exist beyond my senses and my ability to prove them. What are not accepted are the speculative explanations that arise from either the medieval past or the imaginations of those with a romantic eye towards the universe. Because one does not believe in a speculative idea does not mean they are restricted to believing only in what our senses can detect. For example, I believe whatever may lie beyond my senses is probably also beyond my comprehension and therefore beyond my ability to even infer anything about it. Said another way, what ever made up explanation I might create regarding thing beyond our senses I know with some certainty that it will be off the mark. This is because even dealing with just the physical universe I never could have speculated and been right on such things as calculus revealing physical quantitative relationships, or that solid matter is mostly space, or even the stars being so unimaginably far away that what I am currently seeing is the way they looked millions of years ago. No, I know that my speculative efforts would never be close to reality because reality has proven too complex for my imagination so I cannot even beging to speculation on anything metaphysical. So to say that the atheistic view does not believe anything beyond the senses is a common and profound misunderstanding. The disagreement is with the speculative explanations and the willingness to buy into the speculation on face value without rigorous examination—even through reason, which is not based on the senses.
So, what does that have to do with science and theism coexisting? One occupying the physical and the other the metaphysical? Precisely that theism is based solely on speculation and any method of inquiry based on reason has no room for speculation except as a starting point for something new to be explored. That view extends to the explanation of the universe as well. Take for example the point I made earlier in this post that some say evolution and theism can coexist because it is possible that God or some supernatural being could have sparked the evolutionary processes. That conclusion cannot coexist with scientific inquiry. This is because “the spark†is highly speculative and, therefore, does not help in anyway further our understanding of the world or the evolutionary explanation. It merely attempts to fill a gap of understanding with a magical explanation; it does not advance the evolutionary explanation. By its very definition the supernatural explanation is not explorable even when you exclude sensory verification. Therefore, some will conclude that science doesn’t believe in things that are beyond human senses. But many components of mathematics (e.g. imaginary numbers, or Non-Euclidean geometry) are beyond our senses–even beyond our mental perception of the world–and yet very much in the domain of science. The truth is theism is rejected on how it is derived (i.e. made up) not that it is beyond the grasp of sensory input or reasoned thinking.
Speculative conclusions (as opposed to the seed of new ideas), thus, cannot coexist with science otherwise science might as well inquire into the earthly interference of Baal Hammon, the ancient god of the Carthaginians, on evolution. I understand the desire of some theism to be inclusive and extend that welcome to science, but I do not believe it understand on that side why their beliefs are rejected. They tend to assert that they are rejected because they cannot be confirmed by the senses, but they are actually rejected because of how they were derived.
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” – Richard Dawkins
The truth is theism is rejected on how it is derived(made up).
Is love made up? hate? fear? We have given a word(love,hate,fear) to these feelings that we have. Does it mean they are false because they cannot be tested in a lab? Because they are less visible than the microscopic e-coli in our intestines?
For example, I believe whatever may lie beyond my senses is probably also beyond my comprehension and therefore beyond my ability to even infer anything about it. Surgery was always a last resort before germs were discovered. The fatality rate was well above 50%. Professor Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that hand washing could cut the death rate in maternity wards. Surgeons and other colleagues strenuously opposed his idea. All because they could not see the microbes. Semmelweis couldn’t tell them why it helped, only that it did. It wasn’t until Louis Pasteur discovered micro-organisms that sterile procedures began taking place.
So my point is that science brings us new and exciting discoveries all the time. Many things we cannot explain. But scientists like rabbi’s, wrestle with truth and theories. Because it’s not there under your microscope or you can’t identify it doesn’t mean it’s not there. And it surely does not mean you cannot comprehend it. It’s very easy to comprehend why we wash our hands. Something that used to be in the dark has been brought to the light.
————————————————–
Had he really taken its advice he would have gone that extra step and stopped his swearing for good.
Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. Leviticus 17 through 26 is considered the holiness code. To be studied in the Torah. It was the pharisees that followed these verses to an extreme rather than following the spirit. And it was the pharisees that Jesus became most angry with. Because they created laws that perverted the text and pushed away followers.
The child should not be put to death, but will find death between child and parent. A modern example happened near me recently. A son was greedily stealing money from his parents. 80,000. The son was at least 30. His sister threatened to tell her parents. He threatened to kill her if she did. Well he ended up killing his parents, sister, and brother in law. That is what happens when you don’t show your parents the proper respect. Not that exact consequence, but I think you understand. Death between you and your parents.
By the way, Mike Huckabee for president. John Mccain is a close second for me.
Glad to see you’re still in there making your points, Andrew.
â€Is love made up? hate? fear?â€
For one, they’re not beyond our sensory experience because you feel them. But since these are axiomatic, I’m not sure how they’re a relevant comparison. I don’t mean to summarily dismiss your point, bu I don’t see how it compares to speculative explanations of the hereafter. The explanations of the hereafter includes thousands of different scenarios. Tribes of humanity throughout history speculate on very non-self-evident notions for which this is absoutely no evidence. Emotions are not speculative, but are self-evident because everyone experiences them. If everyone explained the same hereafter, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But there is no human who has not experienced love, hate and fear so no speculation is necessary.
Who is it best to rely on for answers that are beyond our senses? The superstition individual? The ancient mind? Does buying into medieval notions qualify one’s explanations for the hereafter? I think not. If anything, buying into such bizarre explanations of which no human has seen the likes of (e.g. possessed snakes and resurrections, which are on equal footing when it comes to evidence with saying a flying spaghetti monster created the universe) should disqualify them from speculations.
The point is the speculations are not supported by any evidence and, thus, you have hundreds of them and hundreds of religions. That is not true for love, hate and fear.
————————————————–
â€The child should not be put to death, but will find death between child and parent. A modern example happened near me recently. A son was greedily stealing money from his parents. 80,000. The son was at least 30. His sister threatened to tell her parents. He threatened to kill her if she did. Well he ended up killing his parents, sister, and brother in law. That is what happens when you don’t show your parents the proper respect. Not that exact consequence, but I think you understand. Death between you and your parents.â€
Religion has promoted untold cruelty towards children and women. Your anecdote is hardly representative. If you’re suggesting that children would just be rampant and unruly without the advice of the bible, I’d point out that many cultures had better behaved children who never even heard of the bible—the Chinese, for example. You don’t need religion or the bible to encourage respect from children.
But that’s a digression. The point was that the in book in which you base the actions of your life and the explanations thereafter recommends death for all kinds minor infractions. â€It was the pharisees that followed these verses to an extreme rather than following the spirit. “ That is an opinion. I hold the same is true for anyone who bases their life on this medieval book. That they are taking things literally (resurrection, possessed snakes, garden of eden, etc.) and missing the spirit of true compassion, which does not require any third party or reward to make it moral. And certainly the bible is full of immoral advice, so even the spirit of the bible is not conducive to compassionate living. It treats women as second class citizens, it suggests that all of life is just the domain of humans, and so on. It’s spirit is not truly compassionate.
â€By the way, Mike Huckabee for president. John Mccain is a close second for me.â€
Regarding Huckabee, theocracies don’t work—look at Iran. This is what caused endless fighting in Europe and gave rise to a balance of power (foreign policy terminology) that put the state over religion because religious wars were too bloody (ironically), and never ceased because conversion proved too difficult.
Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to Peter Carr regarding his view on the separation of church and state, “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.†Our found fathers did not want a Christian nation.
If we elect Christian preachers, then we need to equally elect Muslim imams. Are you up for that?
I enjoyed reading all of your comments and Dr. Dyers books as well. What I enjoy the most about ALL is that we are all searching. I believe that Dr. Dyer is not sharing what he thinks is THE one and only truth for everyone, but what he has experienced through action, research and open minded practice into the principles that are steady through all religions and the beautiful fact that science is beginning to see how we are all connected is a good thing to me. My belief is that if I am willing to share my imperfect experiences,strength and hope with others and make being of maximum service to God and mankind, that I will TRULY happy now and later. Dr. Dyer is just one of many (with varying experiences) that I enjoy reading with an open mind with the principles of love, honesty and truth to guide me along the way. I agree that fighting each other is the last thing that will help us. United in anything we learn, divided we hurt and fall.
Thanks for reading my little bit! Lea
Contributions are always good, Lea.
Do you honestly believe that Dr. Dyer only wants to spark conversation and does not believe he has come across truth? Dyer uses phrases for his beliefs as “knowings” which he says are different than “beliefs.” For example, Dyer: “A belief is generally something that comes to us from outside of ourselves. It’s the culture we’re immersed in. It’s the people who raised us. It’s the books that we’ve read. It’s all of the forces that have been impinging upon us in order to get us to change or to be what they think we should be. Whereas, a knowing is something that comes from within.”
He is talking about his notions of the source and how the source operates. Dyer goes on to say, “When you finally make that conscious contact and you know that you and God are one. I am in you and you are in me. I am in the father and the father is in me. There’s no separation there. The Course in Miracles says that if you do have a problem, you only have one. And that one problem you have is the belief that you are separate from God.”
That just seems like the language of someone who is self-assured that they hold particular truths. He says these things as if they were undisputed.
But how do you see it?
And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, than that your whole body should be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, than that your whole body should be cast into hell. – Matthew 5:29-30. It’s obvious here that Jesus wants his followers to follow his words literally.
Muslims, Christians, and Jews – oh my.I wonder how John F Kennedy would have done as president? A Catholic? president. Oh my god. How would this country survive? He would probably kill kids for disobeying their parents and start a bloody war with muslims or any other religion that doesn’t believe in his religion. Oh wait. He already served his country. And he did a damn good job. I bet he even prayed. His faith probably served him well during the Cuban missile crisis and other defining moments of his presidency.
So I think Huckabee will make a fine president just like he has made a fine governor.
In his 1787 Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated: “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world…” In Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he says truth can stand by itself.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.†He says with what I also agree. God wants us to question, wants us to wrastle(lol) with scripture. Don’t accept blindly what a preacher tells you. Or anyone else. It is all to be prodded and poked like spectator said. When you accept blindly, you leave yourself ignorant and vulnerable.
I screwed up the italics on my last post. sorry
Emotions are not speculative, but are self-evident because everyone experiences them.
I was watching a movie with my wife and kids, “We are Marshall”.I looked at them and felt very thankful, because I know I couldn’t do this on my own. Is being thankful axiomatic, since we all experience it at some point? And who are we thankful to? I’m thankful to Jesus Christ. We have been in situations where we feel hopeless and lost. The challenges seem to overwhelm us. Then I find myself looking at my wife and kids and thinking how did I get here? When the situation seems hopeless or impossible to me, all I have to do is pray. I usually pray for enlightenment and reason.
” Is being thankful axiomatic…”
You mean thankful to a deity? Well, there are many cultures outside the west that are at war with their gods. So, no, many do not experience the thankfulness you’re talking about only the the ones who are taught to think that way do. I never have. I have never been a believer but I have always been curious why others are. The reason is I was not raised with any religion so private thankfulness to what seems to me to be a figment of imagination does not occur to me. Thankful feelings towards a single omnipresence god is not something you’re born with, it is something you’re taught. Most cultures have multiple gods and relate to them very differently.
But even if everyone did have the same feeling of thankfulness you’re describing, it does not prove there is a god. It proves there are thankful feelings in the same way the experience of love only proves that one can experience love. The fact that emotions are self-evident does not mean they prove the existence of something else. They only prove the existence of themselves.
Not to overuse the Santa analogy, or to mean anything disrespectful by it, it does have many interesting parallels. Including thanksfulness.
Like any other child, I was not born with a belief in Santa it was something I was taught. I am remember very vividly that during that period of my life I was very thankful to Santa.
Love, fear and hate were born with. Thankfulness to other people, such as your parents or others that are good to us, we’re born with. But thankfulness towards abstract figures we’re taught, not born with. The evidence is in the fact that they’re not universal across all cultures in the way love, fear and hate are. So my point is, if you teach someone that some abstract figure is responsible for giving them life or anything good (like Santa), then it is natural to be thankful. But the object of that thankfulness is culturally based and, thus, something taught.
What I was trying to convey. In a simple paragraph or two. Was, do you ever look back on all of your accomplishments and think. Wow, how did I survive this or create that? Or do you firmly believe in yourself and lady luck?
If you do then you do have good company. Oprah believes that she accomplished everything based on her planning and putting that plan into action.
I admire Oprah’s hard work and what she does, BUT I have to believe in something bigger than myself, bigger than success, bigger then Oprah. I think it’s natural for us to search for god. By the way, I voted for Huckabee. I know he’s a long shot, but so were the Giants.
“Muslims, Christians, and Jews – oh my.I wonder how John F Kennedy would have done as president?”
It was not the affliation with religion I was referring to, it was the fact that Huckabee is an ordained minister within his church. Kennedy was not. In fact, I believe that many politicians feign religion because atheists can’t get elected. But be that as it may, I used the word “Muslim imam” specicially meaning a cleric or someone ordained within their faith as separate from someone with just a loose afflication with faith.
That’s funny. you said afflicted with faith.lol.
I was referring to the fear people had about JFK’s Catholic faith. That was real. His faith didn’t get him elected, it almost cost him the election.
————————————————–
To address fears that his Catholicism would impact his decision-making, he famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic.”
Are practicing Catholics and ordained ministers that much different?
“do you ever look back on all of your accomplishments and think. Wow, how did I survive this or create that? Or do you firmly believe in yourself and lady luck?”
Two answers: 1) yes, I firmly believe in luck. 2) I am big on self-reliance. At my age I have been through many familial deaths. When my mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and her health was generally declining, my family (which we’re numerous and very close) launched into action and took care of her through her death. There was no praying or drama around as we’re pretty piratical minded. But, yes, I do self-reflect but what carries me through troubles is my ability to focus, reason and take action. I have never—and will never–waste a second praying for something supernatural to help me out. I rely on myself and other people around me. “Inspiration,” “hope” I believe are the words of those who have trouble with self-reliance and are looking elsewhere for answers. That is my opinion and not to say anything pejorative at all about those who think otherwise. (I don’t demand that everyone thinks like me even though I will argue my position.) Above all, I think intellect, reason and the ability to take clear-minded action carries one through bad times better than anything else. Hope is really optimism for survival. To me the best hope for survival is to take the kind of action necessary to ensure survival. That kind of hard reasoning is how you best overcome problems and avoid the drama of being subsumed by tragedy.
I personally find after 59 years of living that it has served me well and better than many I have known with faith. That does not apply to you necessarily because I do not know you. And that is not to overly generalize it, either. But so many I have known with faith tend to be overly dramatic about their problems and blow them out of proportion and, thus, not deal with overcoming them as well as they could. Clear-mindedness lets you solve problems rather than giving them universal significance. Consequently, as a result of this thinking, I do not believe I have ever had a large problem. I have seen them all as small and surmountable. (True, I have had extraordinary luck in my life, which is to say I have accidentally come across circumstances favorable to me. But I do not think they were divine moments because they were many times not as equally favorable to others, as it turns out, and I do not think any deity would favor me over anyone else for any reason.
“Oprah believes that she accomplished everything based on her planning and putting that plan into action.”
Actually, Oprah is a new age spiritualist and believes in Dyer and a personal god. You can see her videos where she talks about spiritual laws on youtube. Search for “Oprah law of attraction.â€
“BUT I have to believe in something bigger than myself, bigger than success, bigger then Oprah.”
Why? Is collective humanity not enough for you? That is one concept that truly eludes me. I mean, the universe is bigger than me, and I believe in it. But how does that extend to the supernatural? But why do you feel that you must, Andrew?
“That’s funny. you said afflicted with faith.lol.”
Sorry, typing too fast for myself.
Let me ask you this Andrew: How does a deity give your life any more significance than it would have just on its own?
Another correction to my words, while I’m at it. I meant “practically” not “piratical.” My word processor tries to guess words before they’re spelled out and often I do not catch its mistakes.
” Are practicing Catholics and ordained ministers that much different?”
Well, that’s a good question. But Kennedy was hardly a true practicing catholic. He reportedly was fooling around with Judith Exner and did not come across with any where near the religious conviction that Huckbee does. I remember Kennedy’s presidency very well. Kennedy was secular in many ways.
Oprah talking about praying to God for a part in the Color Purple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTVHZGZax5U
But Kennedy was hardly a true practicing catholic. He reportedly was fooling around with Judith Exner and did not come across with any where near the religious conviction that Huckbee does. A belief in god does not give the follower infallible qualities.
How does a deity give your life any more significance than it would have just on its own? That’s tough to answer. I look back on my life when I didn’t believe in god. Was my life less significant? To god it was not. Is my life more significant than say yours? No. God doesn’t think so. Just because you don’t know god is at work in your life doesn’t mean it is not so. Just like my example of the micro-organisms. We can’t see therefore they don’t exist.
Is collective humanity not enough for you. No actually it is not. We all have this innate feeling about our surroundings. That there is something more. Scientists experience it when they experiment and hypothesize, the people suffering in Sudan experience it. Everyone in this blog experiences the need for conversation about god. Is he real? Why doesn’t he show up on my door step? This is in us from birth until death.
I am big on self-reliance. I couldn’t agree with you more. Of course that is what makes us republicans.
I guess Oprah’s convictions have changed as her life has changed. Have you always been steadfast in your beliefs? All 59 years? In that time the ideals of the democratic party have changed. In a letter at the age of 10, Fidel Castro expresses admiration for Franklin Roosevelt and The United States. My point is Jesus Christ was teaching in the synagogues at age 10. He never wavered from his position. It is generally agreed upon that he lived until his early thirties. Change is rapid during those years for anyone.
Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
The apostle Paul is writing to early church of Corinth. Creating a new church with people who worshipped the goddess of love was a challenge. Their “worship” looked like an orgy. He was trying to set some rules of conduct that made sense then, but now is alien to our culture.
————————————————-
1st Corinthians 11:11 In the lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.
Submission of women according to the bible does not mean take advantage of women. This is one of the most grossly perverted ideas out there.
Men are to submit to their wives just as wives are to submit to their husbands. When I say submit you say serve. SUBMIT. SERVE. Good job.
” A belief in god does not give the follower infallible qualities.”
I wasn’t trying to say it was. The issue is degree of religiousosity I was using it as an example for a measurment of his convictions. (If he really fears God, he wouldn’t act that way. Obviously, he didn’t fear him too much.)
Religion has no business in government. That is the cornerstone of American government. Monarchies of the past derived their authority from God and, thus, why Thomas Jefferson wrote “We the people…” to say clearly that American government derives it’s authority from its citizens, not religion. It was to break from theocracies of the past.
” I couldn’t agree with you more. Of course that is what makes us republicans.”
I hope you’re not including me when you say “us.”
Because I believe in luck, I believe many homeless are victims of circumstances. And, thus, government as a social role to help them and, in general, provide saftey nets for its citizens. Self-reliance does not mean that your circumstances are your fault. Much of our circumstances we cannot control and it is essential that everyone (and government is a representation of American society) helps out. I do not buy into the every man for himself philosophy of Repubicanism. I believe in charity, and I believe government has a role in charitable actions. It too can be a good samaritan.
When I spoke of self-reliance, I explictly included other people. What I don’t include are supernatual beings because clearly they don’t do anything to help and, if existed, must have caused the problems in the first place. I do not enlist their support for anything. By self-reliance, I mean collective humanity. I believe that many people are down and out through no fault of their own, or the fault of supernatural forces, or because they “don’t think successful thoughts.” I believe in accidental circumstances and I believe some benefit from those accidents and others are hurt.
I am definitely not a Republican.
My political position was probably misunderstood. I am on the left. However, I resent that new age spiritualists, like Oprah, are on the left, too, because I think they represent a continuation of the politics of the sixties, and I think her endorsements hurt the left-wing ideals that I believe in. Like I said before, I’m clearly on the left but I don’t like many who stand next to me.
“Have you always been steadfast in your beliefs? All 59 years? In that time the ideals of the democratic party have changed.”
Pretty much. Not that I don’t think change is good. It is. Re-evaluting positions is growth, no doubt about it. But I’m a bleeding-heart to the core and that influences a lot of my thinking.
Regarding the Democratic party changing, that’s a popular misunderstanding in my view. They were hijacked by the radicals in the sixties, but that hurt the Democrats not changed them. (That’s my point, really.) That was proven by the 1968 election of Nixon, the largest landslide in American history in the 1972 re-election of Nixon, and the Republican backlash (to the radical left) that drew many Democrats over to Reagan in the eighties. That was not because of part platform stance changes, that was because of who was coming over to the party. It is still the party of Robert Kennedy and FDR (universal healthcare), it it still the party of secularism (that’s why evangelics won’t go near it even with McCain as a nominee on the red side…regardless of what Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh say, I can asure you evangelics will not vote for Hillary or Barrack. Ann campaigning for Hillary. Ha! I don’t believe her. They probably just won’t vote.), it is still the party that accepts progressive idealism like the acceptance gay marriage. (Which like it or not, will be accepted someday.) In my view, spiritualism taints the goals of the left because of their hazy thinking–they’re the reason some Republicans say the left “blames America first,” because that faction typically does just that)–and evangelicalism of the right completely violates the principles of separation of church and state. But the Democratic party has never adopted the unpatriotic views that the right claims it has. Noam Chomsky does not represent Democrats. (I suspect he would agree.) Once he does, then I will switch parties.
“I guess Oprah’s convictions have changed as her life has changed.”
Large-scale success seems to create two lines of thought:
God really loves me and was part of my success–even though they also try to make God out to be egalitarian at the same time; can’t have it both ways!
– And everything I’ve ever done or thought is justified because it led me right to this successful point. Everything I did was going somewhere! Dyer relates this with his stories about his father’s grave in which he experienced some transformation that caused him to then be successful. (It was all going somewhere!) Which, ironically, violates their other belief: life is a journey not a destination.
The implications are obvious:
1. If God (they’d say “the source”) really loves you so much to help your success, what does that say about his position on the rest of humanity? They never really come to terms with that implication. I know many say God wants success for everyone, which then that puts the blame of circumstances squarely on the individual. Which is not fair. Many people cannot help that they were born into extreme poverty or slavery. One of the new age notions is we pick our family and life before we’re born. How would they explain slaves then? If they are truly moral, and believe the source had a hand in their success, then the only moral conclusion is to realize how immoral their source actually is—or how selfish their thinking really is. (My success was so important that the universe engineered it!) I have yet to see an explanation out of that one.
If I were to find that upon my death I was face-to-face with the “source†and he asked me why I didn’t appreciate the success, through the acknowledgment of him, bestowed upon me, I would say, how could you do that to others? How could you give me success and yet ruin the life of, say, John Walsh? How could to subject so many to a life of slavery and yet make sure I had it good?
2. And the other is: if you are successful because your think and act in successful ways that attracts success, what does that say about the homeless? Again we’re faced with placing the blame of circumstances on the individual. Now I know they’re compassionate about the plight of the homeless and give the needy free cars and stuff, but there is an inherent insensitivity in that belief that is inescapable. Plus there are loads of people who are successful but don’t and have never acted in successful ways at all. (Case in point: Rosemary Kennedy was born into sybaritic luxury, but was incapacitated by retardation.. Her fortune had nothing to do with her actions! Her debilitating circumstance also had nothing to do with her actions.) In fact, history is riddled with successful scam artists, gamblers and lottery winners who made it big. Some are just in the right place at the right time. Or, more often, born into the right family.
It is all just such ridiculous logic that it boggles my mind. To me it is clear that success stems from the fact that other humans put you on a pedestal and give you money because they like what you say or do. Period. Or they give you money because they abide by certain rules. For example, pick-six horse race winnings: the winner didn’t attract success, the rules of the organization forced the organization to pay him based on an agreed upon outcome of the horses! They gave him the money based on circumstances, he didn’t attract it. They could have easily just not given it to him because they didn’t want to. Just the same, people could simply not give Oprah money because they decided they didn’t like what she said. It is each individual making a choice that they like to watch the station airing Oprah that creates her wealth. It is given to her because of what is desired by the public. The public could also give just as much wealth if she were in a coma and people like watching it on TV. (Never underestimate the morbidity of the television viewing audience.) The point is it is the actions of the public that create the wealth.
I see success in terms of supply and demand with a focus on the demand. People have to want what you’re giving in order for them to give you money. “Attraction†only seems that way from the perspective of the individual who received the fortune because they cannot see every individual choice that put the money into their wallets. But in reality, people willingly gave them that money. There was no force of attraction that made them part with their cash. That is why the law of attraction seems so ludicrous, because it implies that others are invisibly being persuaded to give up their money because God is busy benefiting the recipient.
The only thing I am 100% sure about is that people will believe anything. Higher level education should be a mandate for every U.S. citizen. Who knows, it might have saved the victims at Heaven’s Gate and from preacher Jim Jones.
I will begin my retort where you left off. It will reveal my geographical location but I’m sure I could be found by my ip address anyway.
Higher level education should be a mandate for every U.S. citizen. an be found by my ip address anyway. A man I admire for his hard work and persistence, Dick Portillo, founded Portillo’s restaurants among others. He went to the school of hard knocks. And through that school, learned how to kick most other business owners butts. No phd, no masters, or bachelors. And would your higher education include evolution? creationsim? neither? both? Higher education didn’t save victims of the unabomber.
Higher education didn’t save victims of the unabomber. No, but it certainly didn’t lead them to join a cult and kill themselves either.
I’m trying to understand your statement Dave.Are you inferring that people without higher education will join a cult and kill themselves.
“A man I admire for his hard work and persistence.”
If he also had education, would he be less off? No, it would help not hurt him. So, I’m not sure of your point on that one.
But it was not my assertion to knock those who make great accomplishments without education. My point was if more people were trained to be reasoning folks it might save some from going down the destructive roads that lunatics take them not to mention being less likely to be ripped off self-motivational speakers (like Oprah) who don’t really offer anything. If the people of Jim Jones’ flock were skeptical and questioning, they would probably be alive. Blind faith killed them.
I think higher education is great, but put it into perspective. If everyone had a masters degree, would we really be better off? Would that eleminate the ills of society? I think you are giving too much credit to the “higher educated” society.
I think you’re over generalizing my point. It would probably help produce more people who would be inclined to reason and question; not everyone and not everything. An improvement, not a cure all.
Certainly, encouraging rational thought would most likely lead to self-reliance (not blindly following others) and, thus, would be more helpful than encouraging the adoption of superstition and fantasy, don’t you think? It couldn’t hurt.
Let me ask this: I think you probably would agree that thinking for one’s self is healthier than not.
And when one is doing their own thinking and is inquisitive they’re more likely to look after themselves better, correct?
Then what is the best way to promote thinking-for-one’s-self? What societal institution would you use?
What is The Reason Project?
http://www.reasonproject.org/
Help Build The Reason Project Archive!
Friends and Readers –
We are happy to say that the advisory board of The Reason Project now includes some of the most talented and committed secularists to be found anywhere–and more are on their way.
While it will probably be two months before we launch The Reason Project website, we are now faced with the task of building a large archive of online resources. To facilitate this process, we are hoping to create a network of volunteer editors. If you would like to become part of this network–by submitting links to good articles, websites, or videos–your help would be greatly appreciated at this stage.
Before submitting material to us by email, please review the content and style guidelines at the following link:
Submission Guidelines
For the moment, we are only looking for volunteers to collect archive materials, but there will undoubtedly be many other ways to assist the work of The Reason Project in the future. Our website will offer more information about such opportunities as they arise, as well as provide ways for you to network with like-minded people in your own communities.
All submissions should be sent to the following email address:
Many thanks, in advance, for your help.
Best,
Sam Harris and Annaka Harris
If God works harder for (or with) those who pray, and not as much for those who do not, is he moral?
Aren’t there only 2 conclusions? He either favors those who pray, and so is not egalitarian, or praying doesn’t work. If you believe praying works for you, how do you justify his favoritism towards you and not to those who were never exposed monotheism and never taught to pray?
Why do you assume God works harder for those who pray? We are to be his servants not the other way around.
I hope that answers your question. Seperately though, I try to wrestle with every question you give me. I don’t always have the answer and that frustrates me. I take everything here with an open mind. I do ask myself sometimes, Is my belief in God suffocating my ablilty to reason?
I try to learn from Christian media and let me tell you, it’s frustrating. So many of these people seem like hillbillies with an online degree. You start thinking maybe I don’t want to be in heaven. It’s gonna be full of idiots.
Ha! LOL! You have an objective approach to your own views. I like it. I posted this question on another blog and got one response similar to yours. However, it was from an atheist. They didn’t think it was because we’re servants, as you do, but that it acted as a placebo. In a way, you’re almost saying the same thing.
The obvious response to your first point is why pray at all if we’re doing all the work? So, you don’t see it as enlisting God’s help, such as when your plane is going through turbulence?
“I do ask myself sometimes, Is my belief in God suffocating my ablilty to reason?”
I can’t answer that, but I would guess not. That is, I don’t think that holding opinions on topics that are mysterious and unknown impedes anyone’s ability to reason about them. I think the trick is to be able to recognize what is conjecture and what is not. It is not holding the opinion that gets my camp worked up (as if I have a camp, but I don’t have a better term at the moment), it is asserting it as indisputable truth and deciding how to live a life based on it as if it were indisputable truth. And then forcing it upon others, of course. If all it were was an opinion and recognized as such, there’d probably a lot less friction between differing beliefs.
This was in my Jefferson quote earlier, and I’ve read it put another way before and I believe it: if at the end God asked you, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” and you said, “Not enough evidence.” he would praise you for using your sense of reason, the greatest of human attributes, and not giving in to blind faith. It’s sort of a twist on the Pascal wager for me. That if I engage my sense of reason to its fullest, which means I live my life on the basis that nothing supernatural exists and I will not be immortal or rewarded, and believing that the assistance of humanity is my purpose as defined by me, and for no other reason beyond that, I cannot go wrong even should I be wrong in end. I think reasoning is not only the ultimate survival instinct, but actually brings the peace of mind and contentment that others work so hard–buying endless Dyer/Chopra books and DVDs, meditating, religious rituals, reciting endless mantras, etc.–at obtaining. Being lost in a mathematical problem or some similar thought process I believe is being to true to our human essence. At least it seems that way for me, but what works for one doesn’t necessarily for the another.
Actually, years ago I read a book that explored the notion that “romantics” (like those here from the Dyer/Chopra camp who hold this very rosy and romantic view of the world) were missing the “zen” element of intellectualism. That they were ultimately cheating themselves from what they were after because they viewed intellectualism (actually, “practicalism”) as drudgery that was dry and imposed by a world obsessed with technology and reason. It was called “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.” It also explored the romantic view as well, to be balanced. It was a little hippy-dippyish at times, but it made a pretty good point on practical thinking, how it relates to peace of mind and how it is so avoided by those searching for peace of mind and answers.
I have set about 2 years ago to glorify God in everything I do. To learn as much as I can in my limited time. I often say to myself, “How can this be?”
I have worshipped with many great people who I consider brothers and sisters in Christ. But, I see a great deal of garbage too, who call themselves Christians. An article the other day entitled Absolute Power. About Catholic missionaries from Seattle that set up camp in St. Michael, Alaska. Some 50 years ago. They were the authority from God to these eskimos that lived there. So of course what do Catholic priests do with unlimited power. They abuse it. Molested most of the kids in town and neighboring town. I would trust a Catholic priest as much as I would trust Michael Jackson with my kids.
Another awful example would be the story from a preacher. He told of a man dying in a hospital. The man summoned his 3 kids in the room. He then told his first 2 kids that he would see them soon in heaven. He then told the 3rd that he would miss him. His son asked why will you miss me, but you told my brother and sister that you would see them soon. His dad replied because you don’t believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins.
That seems very foolish to me. If you go to hell for not believing in God, then I think you would believe very quickly. And therefore be reconciled. Zealots don’t believe that. It’s all or nothing right now.
Why not a servant to humanity? That is, why a servant to the creator and not the created since I doubt a creator needs any help.
If you do believe in God the father, creator of heaven and earth, then you also believe that satan is the second most powerful being. So basically we are like the medium that satan and God work with. So to serve God to me is to impact the world in a positive way for Christ. Whenever we do something, we try to conduct ourselves the way Jesus would want us to.
This also means using our time, money, effort, and skills to help others in need. I think that is what you mean by being a servant to humanity.
I looked up servant to humanity and this is what I found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frZXUYULV70 -At the 4:30 mark he seems to imitate Al Bundy
Well, since I was coining a phrase on the spot within the specific context of this conversation, it doesn’t make sense that you could look it up and find clarification on it. If I were to use a generally accepted term I would use “humanism.â€
But that evades the point. You claimed to be a servant of God. I’m questioning who is in more need of service: God or humanity? You don’t need God or anything else to service others, just the will to do so. So, if you’re servicing others using Jesus as a guide and inspiration, how does “service to God†fit into it? Seems the only conclusions are: because you think you must (as per his word), or to save yourself. Because any way you cut it you can help humanity without including the third party of God at all. He is not necessary to help others. In fact, his demand of worship is a distraction to the task at hand not to mention it is highly authoritarian.
I don’t see the role he plays in helping effort. But I don’t think that you’ve really relegated him to the trivial role of inspiration only. I think your service is more about falling in line with what you believe the master plan is and that helping others has something to do with getting them on board with that master plan rather than just out-and-out helping them with no strings attached.
So, God cannot impact the world in a positive way without your help? That suggests he deliberately created a suboptimal world that requires him to recruit others to fix. That one makes no sense at all.
Alternatively, I think you believe that he created a perfect world and humans screwed it up and he’s now recruiting you to fix it. But did you do the damage? Really? Is that fair to you? If you accept that notion, then you are also responsible for slavery (assuming you’re not African-American) and all the other tragedies caused by our ancestors. Seems immoral of God to stick you with the bill of Eve’s creation. Would you make your kids pay for the crimes of the nazis just because they’re human and the Holocaust was caused by humans?
No, I think the service of God means more than helping other humans. I think it is tinged with religious conversion and spreading the word; a soft form of coercion.
If your only motive is to help others, then you would find no need to sign up with a religion. You signed up for other motives, I suspect. Otherwise, you’d just go help others and that would be that.
Let me elboarate if I may. I believe most convert to religion for less than noble reasons. Conversion in most cases occurs during the most difficult times. You or someone close is striken with something fatal, or you think your plane is going down, or you’ve hit rock bottom financially. It is those situtions that most people emerge with a will to service God. It is out of self-preservation. It is the will to survive kicking in. And through that self-preserving act (a wish for an immortal soul is a form of preservation) comes a I’m-going-along-with-the-plan (the plan told to us by people with almost no understanding of the world and how it is comprised).
The calling to God is a form of self-preservation and not the noble cause of serving others. Otherwise the calling would be to simply serve others with no inclusion of a deity whatsoever.
I agree, that it’s a broken man that finds God. And it’s a self fulfilled man that leaves God. Someone that is confident in himself and his own ideals. You could say that I’m in limbo. Not confident in some of the garbage being spewed forth by preachers and not confident in my fellow man.
I do however believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ the rabbi. 100 per cent. Most of the bible doesn’t make sense to me. Especially the old testament. But, Jesus, man, Jesus changed everything for me.
I think you believe that he created a perfect world and humans screwed it up and he’s now recruiting you to fix it. This is exactly what I thought. It never made sense. Why do I have to suffer because of God’s creation, it doesn’t make sense. Jesus is the answer to every human error.
Why would people go to hell because they don’t believe? It’s not like God has made an overwhelming case for his existence. We have thousands of people claiming different pathways to truth. And that is all in the name of Christianity. Then there are dinosaur bones being dug out of the ground. I’ve been told there is a preacher that actually claims dinosaurs were not real. This is what we have to deal with in our own church. Garbage. Jesus is the answer. He says plainly “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Everything else is conjecture.
The calling to God is a form of self-preservation and not the noble cause of serving others. I can only speak for myself, but I’m sure many followers would give similar testimony.
Before I gave my life to God, I was doing good things for others because it made me feel good. I think it’s natural to do good things for others. As we can, we do. I just happen to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ now. I will wear a shirt that says something about Jesus or be happy to talk about my beliefs. But I’m not going to softly shove it down your throat. First of all, I think about myself and how that would make me feel. I wouldn’t like it and would make sure to avoid a person like that. Second I think of Jesus. The truth will stand. When people are presented with it, they can decide for themselves. No need for me to coerce, soft or hard. But you’re right many preachers feel the need to drop bibles on top of everyone’s head.
The philosophy described below has served me well. Its most appealing aspect is that I am not required to accept the imaginative explanations that religion and mysticism offer and yet it completely encapsulates all the optimism and goodwill that religion and mysticism purport to contain (but are not always upon closer examination). Personally, I think as an inspirational message the description of humanism makes the bible look like an antiquated scare tactic based mostly on promises and threats rather than a true guide of how to conduct your life. No one can use the bible in its entirety as a moral guide because it is so filled with immoral suggestions and anecdotes that one has to cherry pick and mold to one’s own objectives.
Religion is always about a benevolent dictatorship which is oxymoronic from the beginning. No authoritarian system can exist purely in the interest of its constituents because its interference restricts the free decisions of its constituency. It is always dogmatic. Additionally, painting all of humanity as “sinners,†meaning they are inferior to some unseen and unknowable force, is not a philosophy built on a celebration of life. It takes the view that humanity is a form of slavery to the master plan of the almighty. A “servant to god†is a master-slave relationship. Such a relationship can never be a healthy one. Therefore, religion can never offer a true and positive outlook on humanity because it relegates it as something sinister to be controlled. Humanism, on the other hand, succeeds where religion has failed as an ethical guide to living and celebrates the human condition. It makes a virtue out of being human.
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
Religion
Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of Humanism are compatible with some religions. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn’t require either of these. The word “ignostic” (American) or “indifferentist” (British, including OED) are sometimes applied to Humanism, on the grounds that Humanism is an ethical process, not a dogma about the existence or otherwise of gods; Humanists simply have no need to be concerned with such questions. Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail Humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.
As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to “religions”, the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a “religion” for this purpose. In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court “declared Humanism to be a religion,” however the Court’s statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists’ right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life’s landmarks.
Knowledge
According to Humanism, it is up to humans to find the truth, as opposed to seeking it through revelation, mysticism, tradition, or anything else that is incompatible with the application of logic to the observable evidence. In demanding that humans avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs, it supports scientific skepticism and the scientific method, rejecting authoritarianism and extreme skepticism, and rendering faith an unacceptable basis for action. Likewise, Humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on the best understanding of one’s individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental truth or an arbitrarily local source.
Optimism
Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the Humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one’s potential is hard work and requires the help of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after, not on suffering through life to be rewarded afterward.
Interesting link posted by DB. It’s the fatality toll of victims to alternative health remedies. The same remedies promoted by Dyer and especially Chopra.
http://whatstheharm.net/index.html
Wow! I can’t believe this thing is still going. I expect thanks to John Q. I don’t have time to catch up, but I remembered way back when, a discussion with Zero about how his wife always wants a blow by blow description of events that he goes to, but she is unable to attend. My daughter sent me a video clip that I believe explains the conundrum perfectly. So, I just thought I’d take a couple minutes and pass it along. It’s hilarious. And I’m pretty sure you all are due for a really good laugh. Maybe John Q. needs a little time in his “nothing box”. 🙂 Tale_of_Two_Brains.wmv Enjoy.
Hey, Jodee. Your video won’t post like that, unfortunately. You can either email it to me and I can post it for you or you can do the following:
1. Get on http://www.photobucket.com and open an account (it’s free and very easy to use. It’s what people use for MySpace postings.)
2. Upload your wmv file to your album on photobucket (make sure you click the “video” tab)
3. You will see it generates something called an HTML code under your video. Just copy and paste that in your post here in this blog and you’ll have a link to your video.
Again, I’d be happy to do you it for you if that’s too much trouble. My email address is
Actually, in my step #3, copy and paste the item labeled Direct Link not HTML code. The HTML code one won’t post here, but the direct link one will.
The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after, not on suffering through life to be rewarded afterward.
So, the goal is to not focus on suffering through life. Because as a Christian that is what I do. I focus all of my energy on suffering in hopes of being rewarded when I’m dead. Sounds like a broad misconception. Suffering comes with our lives, no matter what we believe. It’s inescapable. Sure there are some people who choose to deny the horror, but it’s real.
I saw a show the other day that was Jerry Springer like. The host was Steve, Jerry’s former head of security? I think. These shows are usually pointless trash, but we can incorporate anything into our conversation. The first guest was a teenage girl who accused her step dad of molesting her. The step dad denied the charge and her mother believed the step dad. Lie detector tests were taken. With this information in hand, Steve the host confronted the step dad. Eventually the step dad admitted to molesting the girl. The shock was still to come. The mother was still convinced that her daughter lied. So rather than confront the problem and go through the grueling process of healing, she would rather deny it. Sweep it under the rug rather than embrace the suffering that is now so necessary.
“…in hopes of being rewarded when I’m dead. Sounds like a broad misconception.”
Really? You think your view is representative of general Christianity? I beg to differ.
“The wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23
That sounds a reward to me.
Revelation 2:10 “Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the Crown of Life.” [also sounds like a reward to me]
THE CROWN OF LIFE. There are two ways to achieve this crown. The first way is to simply put complete faith and trust in the Lord when you are facing trials, tribulations, and hardships. When in difficult times and you are faced with pain and suffering you simply rely on the Lord that much more.
Note the word “achieve” in the crown of life description. Eternal salvation is something earned in the eyes of Christanity. Good behavior is clearly rewarded and bad punished, according to the bible. Reward and punshiment is the cornerstone of Abrahamic religions. The Mosaic code is such an example. I do not believe that in your heart that you do not hope to be rewarded with an eternal afterlife for your efforts in this life. Otherwise, what is the point of your belief system since it doesn’t focus on the here and now, but focuses how to act in order to be accepted by Jesus? What you do you do for Jesus’ approval. If you did not, Jesus would not be in the equation.
A little more data on the topic:
WORKS PLEASING TO GOD SHALL BE REWARDED
“And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward” (Matt. 10:42).
“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be” (Rev. 22:12).
‘And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17).
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which Is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall he made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (I Cor. 3:11-15).
“Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2: 10). [repeat]
Andrew, are you seriously taking the position that Christianity is not a path to divine reward?
Two challenges for you, Andrew, on your claim that it is a broad “misconception” that Christians aims to please Jesus and God in turn for afterlife rewards.
From a theological perspective, describe these 2 terms:
1. Deliverance
2. Redemption
What I was trying to say is that our focus as Christians is not on our suffering. Suffering is a part of all of our lives. Christian or not. We accept our suffering and use it as God had intended, for growth. But that is not our focus.
Our focus is on Jesus Christ’s teachings and his life. We find strength in the word.
I see. But I wasn’t really focusing on suffering but addressing at what you think may be misconceived. The point in the humanist description is that the focus of effort for helping others is not a road to somewhere; it is not a means to an end, but the objective itself.
But you’re still coming from a position that suffering and, indeed, all of life is a means to an end. Even though Jesus is your guide, your life is still a proving ground for something larger, correct? It is all going somewhere and that somewhere it is all dictated through a supernatural hierarchy (is God on top, or is it the whole trinity?) via a master plan. That this life is a testing ground for the next.
Therefore, as long as that is true then there is no getting around the fact that doing for others always is done with some expectation–no matter how small or how humble–of something in it for you in the end. That is not necessarily bad, and I don’t believe it that makes your works any less valuable. However, it is not the moral purity that Christianity tries to claim.
Christianity is an organized system to purify one’s soul in accord with the teachings of Jesus, correct? Christians use the word “perfected” to explain it. That is not to say Christians believe their constituents are always perfect. It means they seek and are given forgiveness. In the end, that purifies their soul. Purifies it for what exactly? For salvation—the reward.
And I’m pointing out the logical flaw in this assertion. Any authoritarian system (the hierarchical belief of having a supreme being on top makes it authoritarian) by its very nature cannot produce moral purity because it is a system of approval. Its constituents actually seek approval (i.e. forgiveness). Therefore, its constituents are seeking to be moral for the sake of being moral (which is purity), but for ulterior reasons.
Correction: Therefore, its constituents are not seeking to be moral for the sake of being moral (which is purity), but for ulterior reasons.
Poor Andrew! Times past I’d have tried to throw you a lifeline, but alas I have found there is none for your predicament. You’re dead on, John Q. The conundrums of Christianity are many and unexplainable except by “blind faith”. Kind of like Darwin’s theory of Evolution. But, blind faith isn’t really an explanation, just a determined resignation to a system that is required for some to keep from becoming reprobates and drains on society. For the elite it is a way to control the huddled masses who they perceive might otherwise become reprobates, anarchists, and generally destructive to elitist interests.
Seems to me, it’s about liberty. Liberty is hard work. It’s expensive to get and it’s laborious to keep. You have to accept total responsibility for yourself and your decisions. You must accept the consequences of poor choices without blaming anyone else, along with reveling in the rewards of good choices. If you don’t want to accept that responsibility, you have two main avenues down which you can turn: government or religion. Marxists would prefer you choose government. Fascists seem willing to accept religion as a vehicle, as in the case of the RC, which is actually both government and religion. Either way, you’re relinquishing your liberty and your reward to the degree to which you have relinquished responsibility.
Your choice, Andrew, but you’re beating your head against a wall to try to be convincing that “Jesus” is the answer. (BYW, Andrew – what is his real name? There were no j’s before the 15th century.)
Dyer is pretty tame and humble compared to the otehr “gurus” out there. I remember he came into Madison WI and charged like 20 bucks for people to come see him speak. Would Chop dude or Robbins ever do that?
Posting for Jodee: “Tale of Two Brains” video
http://s147.photobucket.com/albums/r317/Retromingent/?action=view¤t=Tale_of_Two_Brains.flv
Wow, must be the longest running blog in history. I am about to listen to W. Dyer for the first time and I am a christian. I do not like the label but prefer to be christ-like. From what I’ve experienced from the masses who refer to themselves as “christians” there is nothing “christ-like” about them. It’s really sad. I FULLY live in expectant hope of rewards in heaven. I live according to the bible by the Grace of God. I believe in what the bible says that we are to expect abundance and good rewards here on earth AND in heaven. All of us experience “life” good and bad. As far as Dyer and others, I believe his approach to positive thinking, affirmations, loving others, etc., can be found in all different areas of the bible. For instance: “speak those things that are not as though they are”. Whatever you ask in prayer, believe and you will recieve”. “If you will say to this mountain be cast into the sea, etc.,etc., you get the picture. Your words, attitude, thoughts, beliefs (which are simply thoughts that you have recieved as truth) the universal law of attractioin can all be found in the bible. It is up to the individual who calls themselves a christian to divide the truth from non-truth and accept only what is truth. There are things that can be derived from great men after Jesus Christ, such as Paul and a long line of others. I believe that have certain nuggets of truth. Just because the world may label one as a christian, one as “new age” should the teachings automatically be dismissed. You must glean and stand firm on what you believe to be truth, else you will fall for any and everything.
Jodee: Certainly, having you for an ally when it comes to the bible is beneficial. And your feisty debating style is admirable. However, I have to call it as I see it. How do you explain these historic names: John of Gaunt, (died 1399, so was born before the 15CE), Joan of Kent (died 1385), John of Lackland (died 1199, well before 15CE). All are figures of British history taking their names before 15CE.
Further: “J was originally an alternative version of I. There was an emerging distinctive use in Middle High German.[3]â€
“Middle High German (MHG, German Mittelhochdeutsch) is the term used for the period in the history of the German language between 1050 and 1350.“
So, according to American Heritage its use precedes the 15C by almost 400 years. Granted, this is still long after Jesus so it is only a technicality I’m calling out. But your assertion also flies in the face of the Council of Nicea, which occurred in 325CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea), which was specifically to discuss the meaning of Jesus’ life and come to an ecumenical understanding, and, finally, the word Judaism came into being during the 1st century CE: “In the early 1st millennium BCE, Judaism got its name from “Judah”, the land of the Hebrews. We find the term “Judaism†used in the first century CE by Greek-speaking Jews.†(http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_judaism_word.htm)
And on a more general note, I don’t buy into the general argument that seems to guide your opinions at least in part, which is that unconventional explanations some how gain credibility because they’re not generally known or accepted by “the masses.” Just because an idea is unconventional does not mean it stands up any better scrutiny. But the same holds true for conventionality. Simply put, the conventional spectrum is not a very good measurement for truth either way.
Tammy: If good works are done for rewards, are they truly moral? And are they as true as the individual who acts in good faith with absolutely no expectation of reward because they simply have no belief in any supernatural being much less a supernatural system that dispenses judgment on our acts?
Tammy: In regards to your comments about how long this blog has gone on, let me offer some observations.
There are just few enough people who participate here that it has allowed personalties to emerge and, thus, made these discussions more beneficial, in my opinion. To draw a contrast another blog I’ve participated in, one topic has gone on strongly for over 2 years now (which happens to be “is there freewillâ€). However, more than 14,000 people have participated (the blog gives you counts) and I received almost 300 responses to a single post within just a few days. There are so many people talking that you have no time to understand where they are coming from and, consequently, almost everyone gets everyone else wrong which in turn raises the noise. It is much easier to hold an on-going conversation when you know the positions of others and have some context. Also, some unlikely bonding occurred at one point among some of the contributers. I think that kept people coming back.
So much crammed into my poor little brain in a very short period of time, John Q. Just got my centuries mixed up. Point still is, no “j’s” during the supposed time of Jesus. Which also begs the question, “Who exactly are James, John, & Jude?”
No problem. Like I said, it’s just a technicality not a refutation.
However, are there actually historian scholars who back your claim? Something other conspiracy theorists or “truthers” backing this? I have a problem when a small group of people believe the whole world is part of a vast conspiracy except for them. (Could all the historians be in on the conspiracy, too?? And could that question be another canard from a conspirator designed to perpetuate the conspiracy??)
I guess that depends on who you consider an historian. I’ve spent lots of time trying to find one shred of credible extra-biblical evidence that would substantiate the existence of a God-man miracle-working savior figure around the time of Caesar Augustus. So far nothing. The Essenes probably wouldn’t have been great fans of his, but you’d think they would’ve at least written something detracting. From what I’ve been able to find out, no mention of anyone fitting that description by any name is mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls. There remains great debate over the veracity of Josephus’ inclusion. Most seem to agree that it is a forgery, inserted later. And even if it was bona fide, it still isn’t a contemporary witness.
There is some extra-biblical evidence that the man known as St. Paul existed, although it is claimed that he was in fact a convert to the the gnostic sect.
What I have found from one version of the Talmud, (sorry, can’t remember or find which one it is at this moment,) mention of three different Rabbis, all of whom had large followings, all of whom seemed to be at theological odds with each other, and two of whom had names that bear a striking resemblance to the name that Messianics claim, Yeshua and Yahshua. Only thing is, these other guys are only men and they pre-date the Christian era by some 140 or years. At least one of the sects is recorded to have practiced the form of Christian faith recorded in Acts – worshiping a Savior that had already come. But again, over 100 years before he supposedly came.
I did find this historic record and description of a savior:
-Only begotten son born of a virgin (although some dispute this)
-Mother’s name, Meri
-Foster father’s name: Seb or Jo-Seph, when translated
-Of royal decent
-born in a cave
-Announced by an angel
-heralded by a star
-time of birth, the winter solstice
-birth announced by angels to shepherds
-witnessed by three kings (which some claim to be solar deities)
-attempted murder of infant by ruling king
-parents instructed to hide the child
-came of age with special ritual
-age at time of ritual, 12
-no history from age 12 to age 30.
-baptized in a river
-age at baptism: 30
-baptizer beheaded
-tempted in a desolate place by his adversary
-resisted temptation
-had disciples (some debate whether 12 or not)
-walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, stilled the sea by his power.
-raised the dead
-transfigured on a mountain
-gave key address/sermon on the Mount
-death by crucifixion
-accompanied by 2 thieves
-buried in a tomb
-descended into hell, resurrected in three days
-resurrection announced by women
-future reign of 1,000 years.
Regarded as:
-Savior of humanity
Commonly depicted:
-as infant held by mother
Titles:
-the anointed one
-the good shepherd
-the lamb of god
-the bread of life
-the son of man
-the Word
-the fisher
-the winnower
Symbols:
-fish
-vine
-shepherd’s crook
So, there’s my evidence, right? This must be a description, extra-Biblical even, of Jesus. But here’s where it gets really interesting. This is a description of Horus, the son of Ra or Osirus, the ancient sun god of Egypt. The writings are thousands of years older than Christianity.
Now, in the Old Testament we have these directives:
“Don’t learn the ways of the heathen, don’t inquire into what they do; don’t do for Me [in worship] what they do for their gods.” etc., etc. I haven’t listed direct references here because this same theme appears many times throughout the Torah and prophet portions of the Hebrew scriptures, the ones most Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Still part of the Bible, right? Then please explain to me how it makes sense that a god so adamant about faithfulness, fidelity, and exclusivity would model his sent emissary after that of a (from view of these writings,) false god.
Anyone? Oh, and I’m not buying, “the devil did it” answer. Jst. Martyr already used that one.
From what I have been able to determine, and that water gets pretty muddy, the “sus” ending of Jesus, seems to mean, “Lord”, the title of the head of all deities, Zeus. Linguistically, “sus” and “Zeus” are derivatives. If this is true, that raises my previous point again. Why is the supposedly exclusive son of god named after Zeus? or why does his common name incorporate that of Zeus? What happened to “Don’t take the names of heathen gods on your lips.”?
After a shocking, but enlightening study of medieval sacred literature, (not included in the Bible,) which had previously been thought to be historic, but later has proven to be hagiographic instead, I have looked at the Bible through different eyes. With the exception of Esther, Ruth, the Psalms and Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, (I think I’ve remembered them all,) the rest of the Old Testament and the four Gospels read just like hagiographies. They contain some of the same motifs of talking animals and supernatural events common to myths from not just medieval times, but from more ancient times than that. This alone undoes the uniqueness of the authority of the Bible.
Are there still truths there? Sure, just like there are some truths to the Tsoa and Confusionism. Is this compilation of writings put together by the power-hungry, oppressive government of the Roman Catholic Church wearing the guise of religious authority the “Word of God”? Very doubtful. If, as Evangelicals claim, God used the Catholic Church to give us his word, then why all the contradictions? Don’t you see the hoops you have to jump through to make the New and Old Testaments fit together? Gnosticism and Hebraism are NOT compatible. Granted there appears to have been a gallant effort made to write the NT books in concord with the Old, but it falls pathetically short in many regards. Paul’s writings (whose name magically and inexplicably changes from Saul,) are elevated by Evangelicals in particular, above all other Biblical writings, the rest being forced to fit them. This doesn’t even make sense, people! If the latter is a continuation of the former, shouldn’t the latter be consistent with the former? Doesn’t what came first have more weight? If it doesn’t, then why keep it? If the latter is a replacement, then shouldn’t the former just be tossed?
These are the questions that most Christians are afraid to ask themselves. Not one learned man of faith, (and I have consulted many, some of whom I held in high regard,) has been able to answer without reaching into the bag of dogma. They like to conveniently use archaeological discoveries of places and items mentioned in the Bible, as evidence of its accuracy, but the existence of these things doesn’t make the stories surrounding them true. No more than the existence of Abe Lincoln, Savanna, Georgia, Gettysburg, and the Civil War make Rhett Butler and Scarlett O’Hara factually historic people.
Hey! Don’t be dissing Rhett. After everything he gave Scarlett that incestuous tramp could not let go of Ashley. So, watch what say about him.
But, frankly, I don’t give a damn.
Jodee, you make a solidly logical argument, in my opinion. I’ve mulled over it and it does make sense and I really don’t have any information that would directly refute it. In fact, it follows along a smaller line of reason that I have used for many years (although, not in this blog) about the similarities in the epic of Gilgamesh and Noah. In fact, I found when I was once doing an ethnography on some other cultures that most every tribal community that lives near threating bodies of water and suffer regular floods all have a Noah-like story. They all contained narratives of how their communities were built by some survivor of a great flood. So, your logic of tying the etymology of these various gods together seems very reasonable to me.
But I am curious how someone like Andrew responds to something like this. Especially, to the point-by-point specifics. If there are enough facts to dispel one’s worldview, do you allow it to change your mind or do you hang on because it is such a major move out of the comfort zone? But then there all kinds of movements built on the denial of overwhelming evidence.
Don’t worry, you haven’t lost me yet. I’ve been busy with life. I still have something to offer to this argument.
First, I will offer a quote from “God and the Astronomers”. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote at the end of his book, “at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
One more quote. This is from Frances Collins, head biologist of the human genome project. “does the search for the existence of a supernatural being, so pervasive in all cultures ever studied, represent a universal but groundless human longing for something outside ourselves to give meaning to a meaningless life and to take away the sting of death?”
I don’t know as much as you all about Egyptian mythology, but I’m willing to learn. I have found other examples however. The virgin birth came from what was common to the day. What I mean is, if a woman was to become pregnant due to her first time with intercourse, it would have been considered a virgin birth. Another example is what Jodee brought to our attention. Other Gods where thought to have come from virgin births.
“Why would such a universal and uniquely human hunger exist, if it were not connected to some opportunity for fulfillment?” C.S.Lewis- “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists.” A baby feels hunger. A duck wants to swim. There is food. There is water.
Finally, an essay by Annie Dillard. “Now we are no longer primitive. Now the whole world seems not holy. We as a people have moved from pantheism to pan-antheism. It is difficult to undo our own damage and to recall to our presence that which we have asked to leave. It is hard to desecrate a grove and change your mind. We doused the burning bush and cannot rekindle it. We are lighting matches in vain under every green tree. Did the wind used to cry and the hills shout forth praise? Now speech has perished from among the lifeless things of the earth, and living things say very little to very few. And yet it could be that wherever there is motion there is noise, as when a whale breaches and smacks the water, and wherever there is stillness there is the small, still voice, God’s speaking from the whirlwind, nature’s old song and dance, the show we drove from town. What have we been doing all these centuries but trying to call God back to the mountain, or, failing that, raise a peep out of anything that isn’t us? What is the difference between a cathedral and a physics lab? Are they not both saying: Hello?”
No problem, Andrew. My frequent web access is afforded by retirement and wireless equipment that I can roam around with. You have work to do and a family to maintain. I understand and appreciate the hectic life. I used to drive long commutes for many years (104 round trip per day for almost 10 years). I used to fly on business so much that I logged over 80,000 miles/year for a number of years in a row. Now it’s just me and my wife so we have an abundance (I wished Dyer hadn’t ruined that word for me) of time.
First, your Annie Dillard quote was actually a Martin Burber quote she was using as another party’s perspective. I only point that because that was not the central theme of the essay but an opposing view of her own. (She’s not religious, and Martin was a theologian.) However, the narrative of your quotes have a very misguided understanding regarding science: that it creates a cold world where human action and meaning are rendered insignificant. In fact, that is a profound misunderstanding. Some of the beauty and significance lost through rigid analysis is replaced by more beauty and more significance. The shedding of religion for a scientific understanding of the world is to realize a greater significance on a personal level. But this is not appreciated or understood by those who believe beauty is only taking a “holistic superficial view,†which is ingrained in much of religion as well as spiritualism. Let me explain.
Let’s take the appreciation of the stars for example. The romantic view is that one only truly appreciates them when one observes them in a holistic way; taken by their superficiality not their parts and not their internal mechanics. That counting and quantifying them tears the romantic quality from them only to be replaced by the dry and narrow account of the interactions of hydrogen and helium. There is truth to that, but it misses the more profound beauty uncovered by the quantification. And, moreover, misses the real significance of how those elements bind them to everything else in the universe. This is analogous to the traditional view of humanity through the eyes Christianity. In one sense, Christianity holds a romantic view of humanity as a creation rendered wonderful because if its renderer, not because of existence itself. That is, man is significant because of the wonderful God that created him, not because of man himself. And if you reduce humans and their environment to their constituent parts (eliminating the romantic view of God), you lose the meaning of man which is believed to be found in his relation to his creator. That if we strip away the layers of superficial admiration (which is referred to as “ignorance†in one quote of yours) that we lose a sense of our purpose only to ultimately find the “theologians at the top.†That is a romantic’s perspective of critical analysis and it misses a profoundly larger significance of man. That his true significance is the relationship is through one another, not with non-physical entities. The “godless†world of science actually brings that significance to the forefront, and it does not become the meaningless existence that people like Sarte are accused of creating. (Which is a misunderstanding of Sarte, actually.)
I think no one here would deny that the ultimate significance of humans lies in underlying truth. What the arguments center on is what that truth is. The truth that science reveals, and in the same motion strips from the ages of mythology and spirituality, cuts lose a infinitely larger significance of humans that is based in their relationship to one another. That is, the meaning of my life has much more significance if I can solve the inherent problems suffered by others. If I reduce suffering through analysis and quantification, then the meaning of my life is far, far greater than it would simply because of the supposed beauty of my creator.
1. One is not significant for what their parents did, they are significant for what they do.
2. The best thing humans can do is, obviously, alleviate suffering.
3. And the best way to do that is through critical thinking.
I’m going to answer your argument starting with numbers 1,2,and 3 respectively.
1. I am significant for what I do.
2. C.S.Lewis from “The Problem of Pain” -“If God were good, he would wish to make his creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty, he would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore, God lacks either goodness or power or both.
A large amount of suffering on this earth is brought about by human action not God’s action. We invented knives, guns, atomic bombs, etc… not God. Should God restrain our free will in order to prevent this suffering? It wouldn’t be free will then would it.
3. Back in January, we discussed evolution and you told me that we are all connected by DNA. It kind of made me laugh that we could trace our family histories back to gurgling mud. But I prayed on this idea of DNA and being connected to every living creature. Since I do understand the circle of life, which states that we recieve our physical sustenance from the earth in the form of fruits and vegetables. And our bodies return to the earth.
I never imagined that a geneticist would believe in God, let alone head the human genome project. His critical thinking articulates my thoughts in a way that I could never have.
Christianity holds a romantic view of life. And science supports that idea. Stephen Hawking writes “why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that seperates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.” And on the other hand if the rate of expansion had been greater by even one part in a million, starts and planets could not have been able to form. That right there is scientific romanticism. The existence of us, the solar system, metals and non-metals, all rest on the improbable. There are other extreme improbabilities. The nuclear force that holds protons and neutrons together had to be perfect. Too weak, then hydrogen could only form. Too strong, then hydrogen would have turned to helium. Even more astonishing, this same nuclear forcehad to be tuned just so sufficiently fro carbon to form. Carbon could have easily been turned into oxygen. But the carbon was necessary for life. Our universe is wildly improbable.
This is a widely known quote. But I’m going to use it anyway. The physicist Freeman Dyson states ” The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
King David writes in Psalm 8 verse 3
When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
Finally, I will end my argument by quoting Saint Augustine who challenged us about a thousand years before Darwin. With reference to Genesis, “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in holy scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have recieved. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
I probably should have expanded on #1. One is not significant for what their parents did, they are significant for what they do.
You seem to have a Sigmund Freud view about religion.” God is nothing other than an exalted father.” God of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relationship to God depends on the relation to his father in the flesh.”
When you believe in the Christian God, you believe in free will. Therefore we are able to help other’s relieve their suffering. But we also count on God to help us through our own suffering. One example from my own life. My wifes’ grandmother lives near you in sunny California. She is about 80 years old. Struggles with bills on a daily basis, despite what media tells the rest of the world, some people live in poverty in southern California. We have offered our house, but she is in love with the climate. Anyway, we fly her out here once every couple years, last year we drove her to southern Ohio to see her brother before he died of cancer. She struggled to pay off a $500 balance on a car that was junked. She still owed 500 dollars on a car in the junkyard! She could barely pay 10 dollars a month. My wife and I paid it off for her when she was staying with us last April. You should have seen the tears. This was such a burden lifted from her. It was our free will. We could have used that money for something else, but we didn’t. We do these things because it’s in our heart and God has placed it there.
Actually, you have it backwards. Christianity clearly defines its relationship with the almighty as parental: “Our father who art thou in heaven…”. It is projecting its view of parenthood on the universe. In fact, the its guide to parenting (“He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24)) is exactly how it sees Gods role to humanity.
However, my point is more nuanced than you’re getting. Your significance (your highest importance) is when you accepted Jesus in your heart, is it not? Is that not what makes you important in the eyes of God? Therefore, your significance is defined by your relationship to God first and foremost. Everything after (e.g. good works) is secondary.
Yes we consider God our father, the creator of the heavens and of earth. The supernatural being that is not able to be prodded and poked by man.
Did God consider me less significant when I didn’t believe? Is his creation less significant to him when there is doubt in our minds?
Not at all. (I don’t think you’re getting the point.) I am focusing on how one derives meaning in their life. You derive your meaning (that is how I’m using “significanceâ€: the significance of your life and what gives it personal significance to you) from your relationship through your perception of a higher power. That is the source of the meaning of your life from which other meanings follow.
I am drawing a comparison of that to one who derives meaning from strict problem solving. That the true and basic source of the meaning in the life comes from finding answers to problems. That is not a value judgment on either individual. However, it seems to me that deriving meaning from a relationship to an unverifiable entity is essentially hollow. That is not a dispersion, but simply that I don’t believe that rejoicing in Jesus can ever be a fulfilling as fixing large scale problems that helps thousands or even millions. I think one is more fulfilling than the other, and, thus, more meaningful on a personal level.
Additionally, I am pointing out the the “romantic view” (holistic view; the following of being part of something larger and such; accepting Jesus in your heart is a “romantic view” not an analytical view) incorrectly believe that the rigid problem-solving view of the world loses the meaningful fulfillment that I’m talking about. That a “godless” world of science lacks warmth. Romantics miss that point completely. When you look closer, the world of problem-solving is about helping others at its essence. Therefore, it is not cold and impersonal. It essentially warmer and more personal in many regards than religion or spirituality because its focus is on solving issues. And solving issues is truly what makes the world a better place. Accepting Jesus in your heart does little for anyone else other than maybe a springboard for your own inspiration, which anything could serve as.
All the quotes you posted essentially were romantic takes on life’s meaning. And that view fails to understand that there is more meaning and fulfillment in what they think of as the cold and impersonalized science. In fact, much of what you’ve written comes from a romantic position. Thus, phrases like “uncle mud” are your way of driving home the impersonal (as well as what you’d think is silly) views of science. “Mud” is impersonal. You view the world in “warmer tones” and see a more personal touch than, say, evolution.
And I’m saying you’re not getting the bigger picture on science. By its rigid attempt to get at the truth, it helps humanity. In fact, that is is only goal: to solve problems. It is not about how to get to salvation, for example. It is essentially a person-to-person helping tool and, thus, actually connects people.
The fact that you and I are having this conversation on-line is proof of my point. The Internet connects family members who may be in Iraq or other distant places. By solving the problem of communication, human “connections†are created as a result. Because of email and myspace, I keep touch with so many relatives I never would otherwise. We would simply not have the time for all the phone calls. Email keeps me in touch just as a letter would but with so many, many more. Email is technology. And it is not cold, but personal and warm. Cell phones save lives. Romantics don’t really get this at a visceral level.
Let me correct at least a couple of my malapropisms and typos:
“That is not an aspersion, but simply that I don’t believe that rejoicing in Jesus can ever be as fulfilling as, say, fixing large scale problems that helps thousands or even millions.”
Andrew, I think you may misunderstand my position. I believe in intelligent design, I just don’t buy any church’s definition of who that designer(s) is/are. There is far too much order and complexity for me to buy into the theory of evolution. In addition to that, I have noticed that evolutionists seem to be just as dogmatic and “religious” in their fervor as they often accuse Christians of being, and rightfully so, but hypocritical nonetheless. There are SERIOUS problems with evolution that it’s “priests” often are not willing to hold to the same scrutiny to which they hold Creationist views. Could it be that the truth lies somewhere in between the two? Neither side seems willing to entertain that possibility.
There is a book that I think both of you would find incredibly interesting, perhaps even stunning. It’s called “Dead Men’s Secrets”. It will have relevance for John Q’s points, as well as some of the points Andrew is making through his quotes of other authors. Read it, if you have the opportunity. I believe you can get it from Amazon. It’s an amazing book.
Science I think, brings us closer to God. This may be the biggest oxymoron ever. But think about it, scientists apply their craft methodically and mathematically to nature. The resulting technology neither negates nor nullifies God.
It does however, enhance our worship and gives us a clearer picture of how awesome he is. I can’t help it, I’m a hopeless romantic.
That may be true in theory, but in reality, it seems that most scientists that get “play-time” are too busy trying to fit the evidence they find into the preconceived box of their funding to be willing to look at the truth no matter where that takes them. The notion that a funded research grant doesn’t make the grantee beholden to the grantor’s bottom line motivation is a bit naive. But then, a hopeless romantic probably wouldn’t be bothered by that.
“Science I think, brings us closer to God. This may be the biggest oxymoron ever.”
It’s not an oxymoron, it’s reverse logic. You’re assuming you know where everthing (i.e. science) is headed before it gets there. Is there any other point in the progress of science that you successfully predicted where it was going before it got there?
Let me respond to some of your points, Jodee and Andrew, with some clarifications on my position regarding “romantics†and what I’ve written.
1.I was not making any comment (judgment) on the romantic view’s validity.
2.I was not making any comment about the intentions of science, as a whole, or the business that drives it.
3.I was not making any comment about the personal intentions of the individuals who engage in the scientific process.
4.I was not making any comment about the morality of the consequences of science.
The essence of my argument was to point out where the romantic view gets things wrong about science; that there is a basic morality in it that they don’t get. And I’m not talking about the consequences (i.e. resultant outcome) of science, although I used a couple of products to make a point. I think that was a mistake and I digressed with it. What science ultimately produces or doesn’t produce really was not what I was talking about. That is a different topic.
Problem solving—I am essentializing here; stripping away any context in which problem solving would be set—is at its roots one person doing something for another. Now, if those two are evil, then that becomes a discussion of their intentions, not the problem solving skills at hand or the meaning of solving problems in general. That would be a different topic because that would setting a context around it. Same thing if the problem solving endeavor is funded for business’ selfish or even evil reasons. Different subject matter. The point is the problem solving endeavor does have a particular moral essence to it and it is from that which science does actually derive a higher meaning than is ever understood by those on the spiritual side. Yes, they’ll acknowledge its good products (consequences) or that it’s progress is useful (as Andrew did regardless of how presumptuous he was being), but do not see the problem solving aspect itself as a basis of personal significant meaning. They cast that aspect as having no “quality†(I’m using that word in the sense of having an irrational beauty; a quality like you find in art that is elusive to define but yet can be recognized) and being nothing but a rote process.
More to the point, I am comparing how that significant meaning is derived (someone solving someone else’s problem) to how “spiritual†significance is derived. Spiritual significance is derived from worship, ritual, and acceptance of traditional lore, without regard to its verifiability, mind you. It makes doing for others secondary and a relationship with the creator primary. In fact, it makes doing for others a means to an end. (I’ve already made this point many times before, so no need to go there again. But it is an artifact of how how one derives meaning to their life.) Spiritualist’s meaning and significance to the life is not based in human-to-human helpfulness, even though they will embrace it. At its essence, spiritual meaning is a bit hollow and lacking in meaningfulness; a bit cold. For example, in their eyes “man is significant.†Why? Because God or the source is significant! Not because man could be significant on his own. (I hate male-oriented language when talking about humanity but when you talk religion somehow it just works better.) Therefore, at it’s essence science actually has a more warm and personal meaning to it than spirituality claims. This is against the grain of general thought. (Again, that has nothing to do with how science is used.) How can you even compare solving a problem for someone else vs. “accepting Jesus in your heart†when it comes to personal meaningfulness?
Now, let me take that train of thought full circle and tidy it up. What prompted it is the romantic quotes you posted, Andrew. I noticed all had that misunderstanding I was talking about (and, which, that misunderstanding is written about).
I am using “romantic†to lump all religionists and spiritualists who hold a romantic view of their relationship with God and the world. That separates them from the old testament “God fearing†folks. Clearly, that is where Andrew was coming from. The reason they perceive there is “warmth†and personal meaningfulness in that relationship to God (and/or Jesus) is because they anthropomorphize it. (I’ve been accused of using big words before. But there really is no good substitution for that word. Here is its meaning: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropomorphize) They essentially create an image of God as a warm and loving being with human characteristics. It wouldn’t be described in “warm†language if God were, say, a magical lizard. It is essential to spiritualist thought that God, out of all the creatures in the universe we know about, must be human-like. That is where it derives its warmth. However, from my perspective that is completely made up. Should there be a supreme being with the fantastic powers described by such knowledgeable (?) others, it would be anything but human. (In fact, that is why Dyer et al thinks we’re actually little Gods. It is to wrap up that loose end created by religion.) From my perspective, therefore, the “warmth of the relationship†is completely delusional; hollow; not real; wishful; Santa-like; unlike anything else we witness in the world. On the other hand, problem solving—which all science is—is based in real human-to-human interaction. No need to anthropomorphize here because it is real. Therefore, it is based in the kind of relationship that spirituality claims to own.
Not sure I follow you JQ, but I do at least know what “anthropomorphize” means. I actually learned that one at church. LOL Go figure.
I think of science more as the true state of everything. It is the PURSUIT of state in which we humans engage that I think most people think of as science. For me, scientific study is a pursuit of truth that exists whether or not I (or any other human) discover or realize it’s principles/laws/qualities exist or how they work.
What I’m getting from your dissertation thus far, is that problem-solving, as you put it, in relation to everyone/thing around us is superior to a relationship with an essentially undefinable “God”. Ergo, Christian or religious altruism is not as selfless as the claim. To a great extent I concur with that. Even when you leave religious motivations out of the equation, the studies done on the healthful benefits to extending aid, generosity, etc. to others would still be self-motivated, because it makes a person feel better physically, mentally, emotionally. And who doesn’t want to feel better? Well, maybe some pitiable self-loathing individuals bent on self-destruction, but other than they… So, yeah, JQ, I think you’re basically right about that, if I’ve understood what you’re saying.
Andrew, are you a member of a church or religion that gets very emotional about worship? I’m guessing you are, but of course, can’t say for sure. You just give that impression.
Hello JQP and Jodee,
I’m glad you are still here. I checked the blog yesterday (haven’t had time for a very long time) and saw that the debates are ongoing and hot as ever.
Tried to catch up as much as I could. Actually the first thing I did was to scroll up and look for Jodee’s posts. I was really glad when I saw her posts. Thanks for that video (thanks to JQP for technical assistance). I had not laughed that hard for a long time. It was right on. But I wish women also had an empty box, so they could space out and relax once in a while 🙂
As far as JQP, I think he has become the cornerstone of this blog. I think this blog owes it’s longevity to JQP’s well presented and backed up posts.I enjoyed reading his recent debates with Andrew.
As for me, I have been very busy at work. Lot of projects to finish. My daughter turned 2 last week. All my time at home is spent with her. I love every moment I spend with her.
I wish I had time to contribute to the discussion. But I’ll try.
“What I’m getting from your dissertation thus far, is that problem-solving, as you put it, in relation to everyone/thing around us is superior to a relationship with an essentially undefinable “Godâ€.
Not really. If you want to know the monotonicity or trajectory of a hurling object (problem), calculus offers a solution. And so on. But that’s a digression because it should be clear to anyone that science is nothing more than an analytical procedure to finding resolutions to various and specific problems at hand. Period. Anything beyond that is an attempt to establish what you think the purpose of science is. Whether it uses the process to find “truth” or whatever is a different topic. When you say it’s looking for truth, you’re actually defining what you think the purpose of science is, not what science is per se.
My point is (and I’m not going to belabor this any longer) that the “romantics†believe both implicitly and sometimes explicitly that their “warm and beautiful†relationship with…nature, Jesus, whatever…is based in its holistic and superficial–not in the pejorative sense, but in the sense of not peeling the layers analytically–view. You appreciate (romantically) a sunset if you just observe it and soak it in, not if you pick it apart as science does.
This tone was evident in Andrew’s quotes. But that same “ transcendent feeling†is also based in the act of problem solving. That is, if these people bothered to pick apart the beautiful sunset, yes in one sense it loses its beauty, but the new understanding of it is actually a greater beauty not the drudgery they claim. There’s more beauty to be found in the elements and their interactions.
I am not making a value judgment on it (like something is superior), what I’m saying is there is something deeper personally in the art of problem solving that they seem to not understand. Further, I am saying that the personal deepness of problem solving is actually based in something more real (not superior) than what they’re claiming. If you compare it to the “beauty of letting Jesus in your heart,†then is it really deeper on a personal level? I don’t think so. They would find those same transcendent traits if they actually indulged in true world of problem solving (e.g. mathematics, physics, etc.).
Hail, hail the gang’s all here!
Did you get that perpetual energy device going, Zer0? (Don’t be baised, now. 😉 What is your true and objective assessment on it? I am curious.)
Just another line on my last post to you, Jodee. If Andrew responded to my last post with, “well, the transcendent feeling you’re describing in the act of problem solving, JQP, is actually a revelation in God,†or something to that affect (which I’m sure the new age Dyer/Chopra spiritualists would nod in enthusiastic agreement…â€you’re feeling it because you’re finding God, JQP!â€).
And I countered with, “no, it is just a neural network pattern that creates that feeling not a supernatural revelation!†they would see my answer as “drudgery†or “cold†not warm and holistic as with their explanation. That describing it as a “neural network†is the cold language of science, not as “warm†as saying “the clouds parted, a choir of angels sang, and Jesus came into my heart.†But they would be wrong. Looking at the neural network answer to the transcendent feeling you can realize that it actually has more “beauty†and “awe†than the God answer because it requires a deeper understanding to get there. See my point?
JQP, I have been really busy in all aspects of my life and did not spend the time that I wanted to on the “alternate source of energy device”. My brother who was going to do the experiments got sidetracked also. He did a few experiments though and the results were promising. He needs to get a few parts that got fried during an experiment. It’s an ongoing project. Hopefully I and my brother can start spending more time on it.
Did you read The Final Theory book? I think you should. Trust me it will not be a waste of your time.
Jodee, have you read the the book The Final Theory? I have a feeling you may have. But if you haven’t, you really should.
I just read most of this blog over and there is so many point-counter points that I’m starting to wonder if it is even possible to prove or disprove the existence of God at all. The Biblical God, I mean.
It seems that you either know He’s there, or you don’t know.
Some say that they know He is not. How do you prove He’s not…especially to someone who has witnessed a firsthand miracle?
Dr. Dyer is a totally different vehicle because we know he is there, as we can see him. He is rather simple to prove/disprove because there aren’t other Dyer disciples writing things down for him years after his death, thus giving it that
“telephone game” effect. We hear the words straight from his mouth and can therefore make the fact or crap call.
The govt. isn’t afraid of Dyer’s followers, so they don’t feel the need to destroy, alter, or edit his text…or persecute his followers.
The Chinese govt. probably doesn’t see his moving clouds with his mind as a threat, so they will not try to convince their children that he is a fairy tale.
I know there is a God. Can’t prove it to you. Sorry if that disappoints. Believe me when I say it disappoints me, too. I just know.
Belief in something doesn’t make it true, i.e. Santa Clause, but also, not believing in something doesn’t make it not true. In the case of God, the powers that be who destroyed, hid, changed His text, killed His followers so as to dilute the authenticity of His Word or make it unbelievable will have to answer to God Himself.
That makes it hard for us, now doesn’t it? This is why I don’t judge the non-believers. Who can blame them. But the teachings of proverbs, and the parables make sense to me. If Jesus was God incarnate, and I believe so, then it is easier to believe the fact that He could’ve fed thousands with very little food, then a mere mortal can have human children move clouds with their minds.
sorry: I meant easier to believe THAN a mere mortal etc….
I would say to you, Frog, would you believe it if no one told you? Would you believe (“know”) it if you were raised in an atheistic culture? Would you “know” something different if you happened to be born in another time, say as a Hun in the 4th century? Would you believe something different if you were born in 11th century South Africa?
What you bought into was cutural, not based on any evidence that you discovered. Like native language, you pick it up and it becomes a part of you.
Perhaps the best way I can summarize my point on the “romantic view” is to use music as an analogy.
When you’re young (assume you’re not a musical prodigy which is actually just another way of saying you’re mature at music beyond your years) you appreciate simple melodies (like a lullaby) but more complex ones, like Dizzy Gillespie jazz, sound “ugly†or not quite right. The “beauty†of complex melodies (bee-bop jazz like John Coltrane, or concertos by Rachmaninoff) are typically lost on the untrained ear. That is not because there is not beauty in heavy jazz, it is only the listener doesn’t know yet how to “get†complex rhythms and atonal chording arrangements. The untrained will say “it sounds like computer music!†However, after exposure at some point, not always, there’s an “Ah! Hah!†moment where the listener gets it and sees the beauty. But, it’s an acquired taste. But, it also has much more depth and beauty than the lullaby. Complex tonal coloring, as they say.
Science is like that. I believe spiritualism looks a nature and the world at the lullaby level. Simple, and that does have its own beauty. However, when you get into math or something very analytical you discover more complex beauty that you would have never known about otherwise. This is not to say it is “truth†(which is another topic for a different time), it is to say that spiritualism casts science as detached drudgery incorrectly. What they seek in terms of personal fulfillment is there, but they’re not trained so it’s hidden.
To JQP: First of all, hello. Hope you’re doing well. Second, an interesting fact about the Native Americans is that nobody came preaching to them the Gospel in the earliest days of their culture, yet somehow they figured out that there is a Great Spirit through experience.
This is unfair to answer a ? with a ?, but…Would you NOT believe it if someone told you it WASN’T true? Like I said, I can’t prove it…I know it.
This is fact: someone DID tell me it was true. However, someone also told me it WASN’T true. So, begs the question, “How do I know?”
I know how I know, but if I told you, the real question is,”Would JQP believe the answer?”
Now if I was raised in an atheist culture my answer to that question is, yes I would have found out, just not through humans. God would have shown me a way if He chose, then given me the free will to believe it or to think I’m crazy. As far as me buying into culture-you do not know me personally(and for this reason I don’t take any comments personally, but rather objectively)-I used to dabble in witchcraft, which I most certainly would have been introduced to in another culture in another time. Especially voodoo cultures or perhaps if I was born in primitive or some parts of modern day Africa.
So, the buying into of American culture-Christianity is a null point in MY particular case. For the reason of not wanting people to just write me off as another crazy, I will not divulge how God introduced Himself to me…another reason I won’t say at this time is that I cannot prove the event…all I can do is go to my grave KNOWING it happened.
JQP: One more fact: In high school I received the Louis Armstrong Jazz Band Award. I get the metaphor because I also listen to Buddy Rich and Miles Davis and recognize complex noises, while at the same time I manage to be a huge KISS fan(something my guitar player constantly makes fun of me for).
JQP: I do appreciate science as an art form, such as music. I have faced the fact that not everyone can understand certain levels of physics, metaphysics, chemistry, etc. It takes talent. It’s not as though any Joe Sixpack can just sit down, read a scientific theory, and go,”OOHHHH, YYEEEAAHHH! I understand now. !” And I do know there are complexities of a tree or a flower or a man-made technological doohickey. However, I also understand, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” kind of stuff, too. And I know you do, too. You have made it clear to the bloggers that actions speak louder than words(helping others build houses, etc.). But I would make the contention that the difference between you and I is simply that you help others because it feels like the right thing to do FOR YOU. You somehow have an instinct that people need to help people without expecting a reward. This is why I respect you, by the way. I try to do the right thing for more than one reason: also, like you, I have an inner knowing that people should help people. And really, it’s not even because that if I was down and out I would want the same from my fellow humans. That aside, I just know it’s right. The fact that it feels good is a fringe benefit. But the real difference is that I know it pleases God. It just feels good pleasing God. I don’t know how to make you understand that there is no other motive.
Of course I believe that there is a Heaven and that good deeds get you there, but to make you think that I’m not in it for the reward is probably not gonna happen. But, ok, here’s a good true life metaphor: I know and am good friends with an atheist who’s father passed away in a harsh manner(cancer). He took care of his father knowing full well that there was no inheritance to be given as they were poor. He did it anyway…guess what? His father had in fact saved a sizable chunk of $$$ which was given to him after his passing. My quick point is that even if the son knew about his father’s money(reward), he would not have-COULD not have done a better job caring for him. He cared out of love, loyalty, and duty.
Now, I’m not naive enough to think that every Christian is genuine, but I can speak for ME. I am smart enough to know that God knows if you are true or just going through the motions. If I pretended to care for someone and did a stellar job of it–out of greed–God would see right through it, and thus foil my reward. So, I guess I don’t see how you could possibly, as a Christian have alterior motives, as you can’t fool God.
you can, however, still appreciate the reward
Frog, musically we’re on the same page. I also play guitar (in addition to piano) and am a big fan of Eric Johnson, Joe Satriani, and think Van Halen’s tapping technique was a major breakthrough on the instrument. So, you get my unintentionally long-winded point. I was not trying to slight the “romantic view,” I was only trying to point out how they tend to miss that analytical types explore a beauty that is just harder to get at and they wind up coloring science as gray, dull, boring, and, most importantly, lacking in warm human qualities. But in reality, science is extremely rich with those qualities–even more so than they’re used to. And my personal opinion is that when you explore that richness and experience the realization that “there probably is no god,” or “no religion ever seemed to explain anything that matched reality,†it too has a transcendent quality, too.
Native Americans: Yes, every culture develops an explanation for things they can’t readily explain. However, N/A’s did not know that Jesus resurrected, did not know that Mohammad was the last true prophet, did not know the 10 commandments (like some congressmen who ironically want them posted in the halls of congress), and so on. Because those were cultural memes belonging to another region. The fact that humans invent explanations when none are empirically available should not be surprising. We live in a cause-and-effect world and the next level of “cause†always interests us. Everyone asks, “what was the first cause?†That is one reason why monotheism developed, however, it never answered what caused God. Either everything is infinite or spontaneous generation exists in some way. I can’t answer that, but I am personally certain no religion has ever answered it either.
However, all these explanations created by all these cultures are almost completely invalidated with serious scientific inquiry. Ah! Thus my point on the musical, romantic view thing. That the mythological explanations pale in comparison to the rich deepness of what science uncovers empirically. The reality of quantum mechanics is a far, far richer, deeper, more interesting—and more mysterious, mind you–than evil spirits, evil apples, and the mechanics of rain dances.
After scrutinizing this blog once more, I am reminded of this sound advice given to me by a wise one:
When in life you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Andrew, are you a member of a church or religion that gets very emotional about worship? I’m guessing you are, but of course, can’t say for sure. You just give that impression.
I bet you say this to all believers in God. Or am I special? -I do carry an empathy for people who are savaged by disease and victims of heinous crimes. I have felt love and hate, melancholy, and happiness. So why wouldn’t I feel them when I worship God? If I believe he is the creator, would I feel ambivalent towards him?
I am using “romantic†to lump all religionists and spiritualists who hold a romantic view of their relationship with God and the world.
This is a summary from Frances Collins’ “The Language of God”. He is the geneticist that headed the human genome project that I quoted earlier. I refer to it as scientomantic. “…it would be a mistake to simply leave those decisions to scientists. Scientists have a critical role to play in such debates, since they possess special expertise that may enable a clear distinction of what is possible and what is not. But scientists can’t be the only ones at the table. Scientists by their nature are hungry to explore the unknown. Their moral sense is in general no more or less developed than that of other groups, and they are unavoidably afflicted by a potential conflict of interest that may cause them to resent boundaries set by nonscientists. Therefore a wide variety of other perspectives must be represented at the table. The burden is heavy upon those participating in such debates, however, to educate themselves about the scientific facts.” “…I hesitate, however, to advocate very strongly for faith-based bioethics. The obvious danger is the historical record that believers can and will sometimes utilize their faith in a way never intended by God, and to move from loving concern to self-righteous, demagoguery, and extremism.” For example Inquisition, Salem witch hunt. “…we desperately need both voices to be at the table, and not to be shouting at each other.”
Proverbs 2:3 “and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.”
Jodee, JQP, or anyone else. I’m curious. Do you feel people are generally good? bad?
Andrew: Hello…I feel that people being generally good or bad is dependent on soooo many factors such as upbringing, society, etc., but people can be wicked in their thoughts and not their actions for fear of jail, or in the case of children fear of consequence of getting caught by parents. That’s why laws, police, and general etiquette rules are good to have, because good behavior can be taught. I think all children are born selfish–the Mine! Mine! syndrome. But having said that children are also genuinely good because they do things unprompted like—“Daddy! Daddy! Look at the flower I picked for you!”
So, that’s a tough call. I think it’s different for each individual. It’s not something you can put in a blanket statement.
Also, the big conundrum is that man was created in God’s image which is good, but given the free will factor, men do wicked things simply because they are human.
I am generally good, if that helps at all:)
Hi frog. Earlier u said –Of course I believe that there is a Heaven and that good deeds get you there,
My belief in Jesus Christ and therefore belief in God is that accepting his death and resurrection is the only way to heaven. Good deeds are good deeds. Nothing more and nothing less. But I could be wrong. Maybe we are just beings made to walk this earth for about 80 years on average. Adding to the research of the generation before us. In hopes that maybe we can extend the stay of the generation after us. And give them a more comfortable chair to sit in and better food to eat.
But I do believe in God. I believe he loves all of us. I believe science is our exploration of the natural world. With each discovery, we get to see his awesome power and benevolence. I believe being open minded means opening your mind to ideas that may be hard to imagine. Ideas beyond our current thinking. Being open minded does not mean caving in.
Andrew….you think you’re open minded? really? I’m still waiting for you or maybe even Frog to address my list point by point. (2/19) You see, “open-minded” is how I got where I am from where you are now.
But, as long as you’re willing to be open-minded, I have another question: “Where did evil come from?” And please don’t quote me the Bible. I know it very well, and it really doesn’t answer the question. Essentially, it states that evil began with Satan, and that it now dwells in the heart of mankind. (“Evil from his youth” yada, yada, yada…) If it came from Satan, then you have to ask yourself, “Where did Satan come from?” And if you believe, as the Bible also says, that God created everything that is, then He also created Satan, et. al. If Satan could “go bad”, through an act of free will motivated by lust and covetousness, then evil must come from God as well as good. You cannot impart that which you do not possess. If Satan and subsequently man, has the potential for evil, then the Creator must have put it there, correct? That would answer the “image of God” conundrum, wouldn’t it? His image must be both good and evil, mustn’t it? Because if Satan and then man could spontaneously create a trait or capacity of behavior that God didn’t put there, and by many theologians’ premise, could not have put there since He is supposedly only good, then wouldn’t that make them greater or at least equal in power with the Creator? Or are there two Creators? Sort it out if you can. I await your thoughtfully constructed answer.
“When in life you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
And for God’s sake, don’t stab yourself with it 🙂
Jodee: Hello…first of all, I’ll just admit right up front that you’re obviously far better educated than me, so I’m gonna stick by my previous statement of I really don’t think it’s possible at this point to prove or disprove the existence of God in this blog. I know that sounds like a cop out, but the reality is that we can go back and forth all day and just not agree. So, that list is all yours Andrew…and this is why: I could just as easily say that all history before my time was invented because I wasn’t there to confirm it. For all I know, everything that happened before cameras and tape recorders was just people writing things down as they see fit(kind of like FOX news). Everyone agreed that,”This is basically what happened and its a great story so, print it.” I predict that a hundred years from now, the history books will say something like: “George W. Bush found WMD’s in Iraq and therefore invaded.” We know that’s not true, but how will my great great great great grandkids know that if they weren’t here. Anything the powers that be agree to record as history, whether it’s true or not, is going to be accepted as history.
Like I also earlier stated, I discovered the truth about God through a personal experience and not the written word. I also stated that my opinion is that many parts of the Bible could have been edited by the church to make it more or less believable(depending on your point of view). So, when someone brings to me OTHER writings that I have no way of confirming, OR DENYING mind you, I basically fall back on my personal experience in which I don’t need others approval to believe as it is something that HAPPENED not something I READ before my time that I must put faith in.
In my personal experience, Horus never revealed himself to me…trust me, I would have remembered the name…It was crystal clear…”Be still, and know that I am GOD.”
The other ? of where did evil come from? I would say that sometimes it’s ok not to know where something came from as long as you’re aware it’s here now. I certainly can’t prove where it began(just as nobody can really prove that we came from apes–hence the term MISSING link), and even that depends on what your definition of “evil” is.
Andrew: I agree with you on that good deeds get you to heaven IF you believe in the ressurection.
Sorry Jodee, I screwed that last one up, as I’m late for work. I meant to type: I can’t prove where evil came from, but I know it’s here NOW, and I think as long as I have that level of awareness it’s not crucial to PROVE the starting point.
“So, I guess I don’t see how you could possibly, as a Christian have alterior motives, as you can’t fool God.”
Christians address this through the act of forgiveness. You can do what you want, but it’s all okay when you ask and receive forgiveness. On 10 Mile road in Detriot there is a church next to a strip joint for block after block for a few miles. Locals will tell you this is no accident. Strip joint on Friday, forgiveness on Sunday. No one acts like God can see there every thought. On the contrary. Doing good to get into heaven is no different.
But there really is no argument that Christians have largely (not all, but historically many) sought salvation as a reward. The selling of the sacraments and the subsequent Protestant reformation was exactly that: literally the church letting you buy your way into heaven for cash and goods. The Catholic organization sold time from purgatory. So, your argument (i.e., God would know) doesn’t hold up against actual events. And, in any case, can anyone claim that salvation is not a reward for behavior? And if it is, can you say—really–that the religious would not desire that reward? It is most likely that reward was invented for the very reason of making people behave. Your argument doesn’t hold.
By the way, Frog, my argument was not that it meant you have an ulterior motive, it was that there is always the suspicion of an ulterior motive. Only the person who does good deeds and does not believe in a god can not have that suspicion. It’s simply an issue of the degree of morality. I was not saying they were immoral, just that you cannot make the claim that it is a true selfless act when there’s a big reward like immortality dangling in front of it.
time of birth, the winter solstice
If you know when Yeshua was born then you’re ahead of every other scholar. His birth is celebrated Dec. 25th, But not because God intended that way. It began as a pagan holiday. In 350 a.d., Pope Julius I declared Christ mass to be celebrated Dec. 25th. Most scholars actually believe his birth occured in September.
I don’t have the answer for your other points yet. I do ,however, see Jesus Christ as seperate from all other Gods.
Matthew 22:15 “Then the pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. Teacher, they said, we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caeser or not?”
“But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax. They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caeser’s” they replied.
“Then he said to them, Give to Caeser what is Caeser’s and to God what is God’s.”
My question to you Jodee is, what are your intentions? To disprove the existence of Yeshua(Hebrew for Jesus).
The Catholic church has gotten many arguments wrong in the past. Many declarations have only muddied the water. Galileo is a great example. The church refuted his idea that the earth rotated around the sun. Psalm 104:5 “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”
Your answer to evil, I believe can be found in the book of Job. I won’t quote since you know the story. But evil is used as an example. Job’s faith is deepened and he sees God. Just like a marriage, through the more difficult times, we strengthen our bond. Is it possible to have good without having evil?
And please don’t quote me the Bible. I know it very well, and it really doesn’t answer the question. We obviously live with evil. So, I’m curious, where does it come from?
Sorry for the italics screw up. I hate it when I do that.
“We obviously live with evil. So, I’m curious, where does it come from?”
I know that was not intended for me, but I’ll weigh in anyway. That statement assumes there is moral absolutism. Give me any evil act and I can put the same act in a context where it is not evil. The same for good. All actions have a context on which we make the judgment of good or evil. That judgment does not exist outside of human interactions. Is cannibalism evil? If it’s tribal, that is hard to make a case. If it’s Hannibal Lechter, then yes. But it is evil in the later case because of the contractual understanding with have with other, not because “evil exists” on its own. Evil is a judgment and saying it exists in absolute terms is incorrect because if they (the ones who cast that judgment) don’t exist neither does the judgment. It does not exist outside them. It is simply an understanding among people.
And if you say God’s judgment exists, then his code is not known by a good part of humanity. And I don’t think he punish tribal cannibalism.
Further, as a society we could all agree to change what actions are rendered evil and which are rendered good. Protecting humans is a practical matter, but it is entirely possible (and has happened in history) to not value life and cast it as good. That would suddenly make many “evil” actions good.
Again, evil is nothing more than a contractual understanding with each other. And we can change that understanding to be whatever we want it to be. And many understandings among many cultures throughout history have had wildly different ideas about good and evil. There is no moral absolutism.
I give you an evil act:
http://www.ktvu.com/deathrow/13785209/detail.html
It is only evil in the context of a culture that values human life. What says we have to value human life? Many cultures sacrificed humans at the altar of gods. The Carthaginians sacrificed babies in the tophets. Were they evil? They thought the were doing a good thing.
TThere are some things in our culture we value over human life: freedom, for instance. We will sacrifice our own kids for it. Is sacrificing your kids evil in that sense? If so, is there nothing worth dying for?
What is the difference between sacrificing your kids in a war to protect freedom (and ideal) vs. sacrificing them in a religious ceremony to improve crop growth? Both value an ideal over human life. Therefore, you cannot say in absolute terms that killing your kids is wrong.
And, by the way, your God of the old testament makes that guy in your article look like a saint. So, even God’s actions have moral relativity. They’re judged good in a certain context, bad in another.
What you deem good vs. evil depends entirely on what you value. If you value human life in all cases, above all else, then no ideal is worth dying for including freedom because human life trumps all ideals. Really? There is no situation that is important than human life? On the other hand, if you value certain ideals more important than even your own kids’ lives, is that absoulte morality or contextual morality?
You’re judging everything based on western cultural values. They are not absolute.
There are no absolute right or wrongs. All ethical decisions are relative. If there is no absolute truth, can your view be true? If there is no right or wrong then there is no reason to argue for the discipline of ethics. Our right is not their right, therefore we are all wrong. Or are we all right?
Give me any evil act and I can put the same act in a context where it is not evil.
I was giving you an evil act conducted under the western cultural values. To prove that evil does exist in any culture. To go further, if evil can exist inside of a culture, then what would stop it from consuming an entire culture?
Benjamin Warfield wrote
“We must not, then, as Christians, assume an attitude of antagonism toward the truths of reason, or the truths of philosophy, or the truths of science, or the truths of history, or the truths of criticism. As children of the light, we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every ray of light. Let us, then, cultivate an attitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day. None should be more zealous in them than we. None should be more quick to discern the truth in every field, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it, whithersoever it leads.”
More romantic garble that I try to adhere to.
†To go further, if evil can exist inside of a culture, then what would stop it from consuming an entire culture?”
That is a utilitarian judgment, not a moral one. Example: Germanic Flagellents. Lots cultures have placed a higher value on an ideal that was self-defeating. That is a practical consideration, not one of good and evil. Basically, you’re place the existence of the culture as a high value. Could there be a more important value than that culture? Does its existence really outweigh every other possible value?
You’re thought is incorrectly stated. Evil judgment is made by all humans somewhere sometime. But what they apply it to differs. It is a human concept not an objectively existing entity. If that is your logic (i.e. if everyone conceives a similar thought it must exist), then all human concepts are existent. Then math’s complex numbers (i^2 = -1) exists?? In fact, show me in reality something that is negative–below zero, preceding non-existence?? Show me where that exists outside the realm of mathematics? No, there are many human concepts which exist strictly in the realm of human imagination and not in reality. Just because every culture develops that same concept out of necessity does not mean it suddenly exists in an objective sense.
Because a concept has utilitarian value does mean it makes it more “existing” than a concept which does not have utilitarian value. Utility is not a criteria for existence.
By the way, you were suggesting I had some circular reasoning. That if there are no “absolutes,” then it applies to my point. But I didn’t say there are no “absolutes,” I said there are not moral absolutes. My point is not a moral one so it doesn’t apply to itself. There are absolutes in the world, human judgement is not one of them.
The problem is, Andrew, you have a logic flaw because you are arguing on from a epistemological stance not an intrinsic one and are trying to make it intrinsic. Epistemology means we humans have an agreement that, for example, a screwdriver is a screwdriver. However, it is not a screwdriver in an intrinsic sense. It is simply a device that can be used how ever you want. Since we agree it is mostly used for turning screws, then it is epistemological. But in reality it is a “thing†and in another culture and context it is not a screwdriver but an oil can opener! There is nothing intrinsic about it that makes it a screwdriver. Only human contract does.
So, the fact that the screwdriver exists means there are absolutes. The “thing” does exist objectively. However, the “screwdriver” quality that we give to it is only an agreement between you, me and others. No one has to agree that that is what it is. So, it lacks intrinsic value beyond just being a thing.
So, absolutes exist (the object), but the quality of the object does not. That is up to the individual and culture.
So, the only thing you’ve actually pointed out is that all humans apply judgment. Not that what the judgment applies to exists. That part is relative. Evil doesn’t exist objectively because it is subjective and changes from culture to culture.
Frog: “so I’m gonna stick by my previous statement of I really don’t think it’s possible at this point to prove or disprove the existence of God in this blog.”
However, since one side claims to “know” something the other has absolutely no evidence of, the burden of proof rests with the believers. If you say to me you saw a ghost, it is not up to me to prove you didn’t because I do not own the claim. It is up to you to prove you did since you own the claim.
When people claim, “I know how the world came into being,” or “I know that we have souls which are immortal” or “I know not only that there is a god, but what that god wants,” then they are making outrageously extraordinary claims. Thus, they must back such outrageous claims.
Thus, if you can’t back outrageous claims, don’t make them.
JQP, well presented and strong arguments.
You are reinforcing my point (from many months ago) that everything has duality, so there is no absolute.
I would even go further than you and say that the existence of the screwdriver is not absolute.
To you it may seem hard and solid. But to a radio frequency wave it does not even exist. It will go through it, as if there was no object there at all. So I would say that the existence of anything is also subjective.
I think that the universe is dual in nature and everything that is created in it must be dual in nature. If it is dual then it is neither one absolutely, and so has the potential of being the either extreme and everything in between.
I hope I was able to explain myself.
Thus, if you can’t back outrageous claims, don’t make them.
I have to start by saying that I have never seen God’s face or heard his voice. I will not claim to have shaken his hand. However, I don’t think it’s outrageous to claim that a supernatural God has created life. The mathematical improbability that we are here, that the universe didn’t turn into pure radiation.
Just like my earlier post about Professor Semmelweis who discovered that washing hands before surgery dramatically cut the death rate in maternity wards. He didn’t know why, he just knew after experimenting that it did.
I think it comes down to, who would you want to be yoked with, Jesus Christ, Horus, men who are confident in themselves, etc…
That’s great Zero. Maybe I’m too stupid to understand the concept; If a radio frequency doesn’t think it exists than maybe it doesn’t. So the radio frequency becomes the authority on what exists and what doesn’t. Or are u saying that our existence depends on who is the authority?
“Prove, and you shall find.”
Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it?
And by the way, JQP, since were way off the Dyer subject anyway…David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar? Who’s better? And then prove it! Ha, Ha! Just kidding. Just curious if you’ve caught any of the reunion so far.
Oooo.. interesting discussion! “I think that the universe is dual in nature and everything that is created in it must be dual in nature.” That is exactly what I was driving at with several posts I’ve made. #1) that everything has the same “fingerprint” if you will, and more recently #2)That both good and evil emanated from the same source/creator.
I will only limit relativism to the extent that even the most barbaric of cultures has striven to survive and that to do so, it has recognized the need for some sort of order or value system. This is common to all. Some of the rules may be different, but even within prison populations, there is a code of behavior. Generally speaking, nearly all cultures have recognized the need NOT to tolerate murder and theft and have recognized the need for some form of justice. There is no point to any form of justice if everything is relative and therefore, allowed. Many do not tolerate adultery without bounds. (For example, and I don’t mean to be profane here, but everyone’s favorite “f” word is the acronym for “Fornication Under Consent of the King.)
This doesn’t seem to be exclusive to humans, but even extends into much of the animal world, I can only assume, via instincts. Certain species are territorial because it means there survival. If they over-populate and concentrate their numbers, they all starve. Humans take those basic instincts and establish moral codes.
That being said, evil appears may be that which leads to the extinction of life in general, ie. an entire society, species, culture, etc., since nature itself in every aspect strives to live in spite of often staggering odds. (Not to say that it always succeeds.)
So, is cannibalism evil? I would guess that it is, based on the previous premise. It results in the extinction of life. #1) the extinction of those who are eaten and #2) the extinction of the eaters, since the regular consumption of human flesh by humans leads directly to disease and death, albeit not immediately upon eating. The length of time it takes for the consequences to be realized is not the determining factor.ergo, the demise of cultures and societies by self-destructive policies and practices. (Natural disasters not included, although…..)The Carthaginians and others sacrificed their children – yes – and where are they today? Offspring are the future of all species. Killing them means killing your own future.
So, killing to live – probably good, depending on the details. (Thinking you’ll live as a result, when it will actually result in death, doesn’t count.) Killing just to kill or to satisfy some other non-essential-to-life-in-general urge – probably bad/evil.
Now, it gets a bit dicier when you move beyond life and death. Is slavery evil? Perhaps, since the core of mankind rebells against it on a most basic level. We’re talking overall, here. I realize that some people actually prefer it, but looking at the whole of human history as we know it, that doesn’t appear to be the consensus.
And yes, I do question the existence of Jesus as much as that of Horus. It appears they are, in fact, one in the same, separated only by culture and time. And further, there is some evidence that the idea of both emanated from even earlier beliefs held by the Sumarians. The whole father, son, mother motif was not new even to the Egyptians; nor the idea of miraculous god/human resurrection. Samaramus is the earliest I’ve read about – both mother and wife to Tammuz via this very type of resurrection. Eventually, through re-invention she became a he. Enter, Horus, Jesus, et. al.
JQP is right: the reason we challenge Christian beliefs is because Christianity claims to know the truth, while simultaneously contending for it amongst themselves, seemingly oblivious to the contradictions it’s most basic doctrines pose against themselves. Besides, you can’t prove a negative. The claim is made and the claim is challenged. The onus of proof rests on the claimant.
Andrew and Frog, you miss my point if you think I’m arguing for atheism. That, too, has major challenges to address just in the complex and orderly nature of things. My point is, I don’t know who “God” is or if such a thing can even be known at this point in human history, but I know who “He” isn’t. “He” isn’t who Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, claims.
Hi Jodee: I don’t think you are arguing for atheism. I know you’re just searching for the answer. I am merely suggesting that when I stopped looking for the all evasive proof, and just put my trust and faith into the existence of God, blindly I might add, that the proof found me.
And did you know that the universal “middle finger” insult came from a king who swore to cut off the middle finger of every archer of an opposing army(archers during that time used the middle finger to pull back the string on their bows before firing their arrows) as a form of punishment. BUT–that particular army of archers won the battle, and as they captured the king they all flipped him the bird just to rub it his face. I know that last fact wasn’t important, but your comment made me think of that:)
And although I can’t prove any claim, I can back that claim by proving my faith. I prove my faith by exercising it.
Wouldn’t it suck if John 3:16 said;
“And God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever can prove that He really existed, will not perish, but have eternal life.”
Minor point as I peruse all these ideas:
“So, is cannibalism evil? I would guess that it is, based on the previous premise. It results in the extinction of life. #1) the extinction of those who are eaten and #2) the extinction of the eaters…”
Again, that is a utilitarian argument not a morality one. That is because the statement assumes that existence (staying alive!) is given the highest value because of it’s practicalness not because of its goodness or badness. That is, you are judging it as good based on a hidden value system that assumes existence is of the highest value. So, you can only say that cannibalism is bad based on the value system you assumed. Make up another value system and it can be cast as good. Just because an act is practical does not automatically make it moral.
Doing something to stay alive is not a moral act by itself, but a practical one. There is nothing about “staying alive” that is either good or bad. Goodness or badness only comes into play when you introduce a value system.
Actually, the utilitarian logic flaw that so many make goes to the heart of monotheism. There is no way anyone can come up with an action that is intrinsically good or bad because good-bad is simply a scale on some value system. Most people assume, and forget they’re assuming, a value system. A value system is actually arbitrary even though it can be based in utilitarian value so some other practical entity.
But one of the reasons monotheism developed is to take the value system out of the hands of humans and force it to be intrinsic because of the very problem of moral relativity—everyone gets to decide what is good and what is bad! (We have to stop that!) That is, if it’s God value system (e.g. 10 commandants) it is no longer relative but etched in stone–literally! That goodness and badness are God’s decisions, not ours.
And that goes to the heart of everything we’re discussing. Since I have no evidence of a God, then all value systems are human-made, and thus introduces moral relativity, from my perspective. The hard part for the believers is if there is a God and the morality has a final decision with him, then why can no two religions agree on that moral code? Again, even in religion you have moral relativity. Don’t wear a head scarf here in the U.S. and it is not immoral. Do it in Saudi Arabia and look out! They have a different value system that they claim is God’s (i.e., the final value system!) too.
Monotheism, thus, is a single decision point hierarchy (which the church models itself after) designed to eliminate the messiness of everyone getting to decide everything and having it all create nothing but confusion and contradiction. That is the purpose of all hierarchical systems: a single decision point. That is how you get a cooperative society; that is how you get law and order.
Now, I hope no one thinks that I was stating the goodness of badness of a hierarchical system; that I was making an argument for religion or even against it with that one point. I was not judging it, only pointing out a motivation for monotheism vs. polytheism. Single decision point systems are supposed to eliminate disagreements and, thus, fix issues of moral relativity, which Christians naturally hate–especially its prevalence in secular society. But I do think that that point is a very logical indication that Abrahamic religions are man-made and not authentic. They are hierarchical systems designed specifically to resolve all morality decisions.
So, bringing the “evil exists” point home built on all the philosophical statements I just made:
1. Goodness or badness is a value system measurement that any human or culture can decide for itself (what they value and what they don’t)
2. Religion creates a single-decision point value system for morality stating that it rests only with God. That is, God makes all final good-bad judgments.
3. Therefore, if evil “exists” based on God’s moral judgments, God created evil. It was his value system that deems certain actions as “evil.” It is his value system that created evil.
And (sorry to to on), just for clarity because not everyone seems to get my subtly, when I say “creates evil†I do not mean in the objective, intrinsic sense—like the existence of a ball or truck. I mean as a contractual agreement among…well, beings. God and his subjects (why anyone would want to willing be a “subject,†i.e. slave, I will never understand.) have an agreement. That is what I means when I say “created.â€
Correction: That is what I mean when I say “created.†(Sorry, but that particular typo came off like an urban “gangsta!” Which middle-aged white guys like me really can’t get away with.)
Oh, and someone asked me if I thought people were basically good or bad. (Sorry, but I’m also finishing up an article for a computer magazine and so I’m not reading your remarks with as much diligence as I normally can afford.)
Well, I’ve explained philosophically that moral judgments are based on value systems. So, give me a value system and then I can judge someone’s behavior.
However, to not come off as dodging your question, so I’ll approach it this way: I believe that regardless of the overall consequences of an individual’s actions, each individual feels at the time they are doing good no matter how anyone else will ultimately judge them on a given value scale. Even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing—either politically or through genocide. That is, if he really believed that a group of folks were responsible for the world’s ills (which is a mistake in his logic), then he must have thought he was doing a good thing by offing them all. We don’t because we do not believe “racial purity†is more important than human life. (However, we do think that “patriotism†is under the right conditions.) If he didn’t really think that Jewish folks were the cause of all problems, but was simply using a common enemy to band his countrymen, then he still thought that his political aspirations were somehow good for Germany. Any way you slice it, it is hard to escape that he actually thought he would be doing good no matter how we judge it. We have a very high regard for human life so this is always a very uncomfortable point to make.
So, I believe everyone strives to do good, but they develop misguided (self-defeating) value systems. We (humans) have a natural inclination towards the utility value of “staying alive†because it is instinctual—with a little anthropic reasoning (which I see DB cringing right now! Stop it!) I’ll show what I mean: that is, we are alive because we have a will to survive. If we didn’t have that will, we wouldn’t be here to have that will. It’s some chicken-and-egg logic, really. But it is a major driver in all value systems because it is truly something we’re born with.
We (Western culture) judge things based partly on a utilitarian value system (staying alive and keeping the culture alive are highly valued goals) and partly on an empathetic value system (we don’t want to be ripped off or killed, so we don’t rip off and kill others…most of the time). The “do unto others…†clause. This allows the culture to be perpetual, which is really what I think was one of Jodee’s points. If you think that culture is good for humanity, then you think it should be perpetuated.
Andrew, what I’m saying is that awareness is the key factor.
If you were an electron in a universe were nothing else existed how would you know that you exist? How would you prove your existence? How would you even know that there was a universe unless there was a second electron that you were aware of. As soon as a second electron appears in the universe the awareness begins. Now you can say “I exist because I am aware of the existence of another”. A relationship will develop were you will effect the other electron and the other electron will effect you. Only then you can say that the other electron exists. Otherwise you will be speculating.
So the existence of anything is in the awareness of the beholder.
So it can be said that nothing and everything exists in the universe at the same time. It all depends on the awareness of the observer. Actually the universe can be divided in two, the one that we are aware of and the one that we are not aware of. So each of us has a universe of our own that we are aware of. By collectively sharing and agreeing what that universe is we expand that awareness. But what we are not aware of may or may not exist in the rest of the universe that we are not aware of.
I agree with JQP’s points. The same event can be seen many different ways depending on the frame of reference. Each of us has our own personal universe that we are aware of and it only belongs to us. In a way we are the god of our personal universe because we create and form it by our own free will. So Andrew’s and JQP’s universe are both real for each of them and differ from my personal universe. All our personal universes are a subset of the Universe.
Or they could be a subset of a subset of a subset……
This is just my opinion, based on my awareness of the universe around me.
“If you were an electron in a universe were nothing else existed how would you know that you exist?”
Huh? So, if you’re on a gurney have lost all senses (hearing, sight, feeling, smell, taste) couldn’t tell you’re alive? Nonsense. That is what “I think, therefore I am” means. The fact that you can question your reality (electron asking itself) means you exist. The question is all that is necessary for existence to be shown.
JQP, I think you missed my point. I probably didn’t present it clearly (as always).
But let me ask you this, how would an electron ask a question? Do you personally know an electron that was thinking and asking questions?
Maybe I should have said a “point” or a “dot” instead of an electron.
At what point does awareness start?
If you are just a dot (and not a thinking or questioning electron), when would you know that you are moving or how big or small you are?
That would start only when another dot appears in the universe. Now the first dot has a reference point. Now it is moving away from or towards the second dot, it is larger or smaller than the second dot, etc, etc. Now there is awareness of self and the non-self.
If you are the only dot in the universe and you are not even aware of yourself, how can you possibly ask a question? In order for the question to be asked there must exist a questioner and a subject of a question (self and the non-self).
If you are the only dot in the universe then you are the universe. When the second dot appears then the universe divides into the self, the other dot, and everything else that is not the two dots.
Now you have a universe.
If you were on a gurney with all your senses gone and your capacity to think and ask questions gone, do you exist? According to you, you don’t exist because you can’t question your reality.
According to me you do exist because the reality around you is aware of you. The gurney, the nurses, etc. etc. are aware of your existence. There is no need for you to ask the question.
Give me an outrageous claim and I can put the same claim in a context where it is not outrageous.
Sorry, just having a lttle fun.
Zer0: What if the object you are aware of has no awareness?
Therefore, the object could not be aware of you. Would you still exist?
“Give me an outrageous claim and I can put the same claim in a context where it is not outrageous.”
Really. “God created everything.” Put that in a context where it is not an extraordinary (i.e., outrageous) claim requiring no evidence to back it. That is, make it seem as self-evident as, say, “the sky is blue.”
OK. “God created everything.”
Father(to his young child, let’s say 5 yrs. old):
“Son, do you see the bright blue sky above?”
Child(who loves and trusts his father explicitly):
“Yes.”
F: “And do you see all the magnificent trees towering above?”
S: “Yes.”
F: “And all the birds, squirrels, and creatures running about?”
S: “Yes.”
F: “And all the people around us. And the rivers, mountains, and green grasses?”
S: “Yes.”
F: “Well, son, they were created by a loving, caring, all powerful God. A God that wants us to love one another and be happy.”
S: “Really?”
F: “Yes, my son.” (here it comes) “GOD CREATED EVERYTHING.”
S: “Wow.”
The context I created was this:
A child trusting his father not to lead him astray. Faith, if you will.
The child probably based his reason on the relationship he has with his father. It was an assumption, of course. If the sun rises every day for 5 yrs., and your father tells you it will rise again tomorrow, you just naturally assume it will. The child will not ask for the required evidence to assure him the sun will rise again.
Faith is based on trust. Faith in God is not science. Here is a hypothetical; Jesus shows up on someone’s doorstep today. It doesn’t matter if the someone is a believer or not. Jesus introduces Himself as the Son of God. Performs many miracles, quotes the Bible, raises their dog from the dead that’s been buried in the backyard for weeks, proceeds to tell this someone things about them that no one could ever know. This person may still not believe that it’s Jesus. He may think it’s the devil, or David Blaine, or a false prophet.
My point is, when dealing with the word “faith”, proof is a non factor. I believe that is pretty much the definition of faith.
If I told Jodee God is real, that would be an outrageous claim. If I told Andrew and Frog God is real, it would not be an outrageous claim.
Context. Jodee needs evidence, Andrew and Frog do not.
Also, I don’t think that outrageous is necessarily a synonym for extraordinary. Outrageous, to me, means grossly offensive, appalling, or insulting. Things along those lines. While extraordinary means that it is phenomenal, or special. Something that stands out on it’s own as being better than something else.
So, in essence, I was able to take a claim you found offensive and put it in a context where it was not offensive to someone else.
Even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing.
I’m sorry. I haven’t been able to read much yet. BUT, I can’t help but notice that we produce our evil vs. good argument based on someone who has perpetrated an awful act on others with good intentions.(e.g.) political gain for one’s country or whatever else. What if we take this same argument and instead of Hitler or Mussolini being the center, we use Richard Allen Davis, the murderer of Polly Klaas. His intentions were neither survival nor good.
This is real, not an electron with a predictable pattern:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis
Nez, You say I don’t need evidence. Let’s lump every one who argues for God into one category shall we. Sounds like you are resorting to a sterotypical crutch. Like if I were to say you’re a scientist geek. In my limited time I’ve been looking for as much evidence as I can possibly find. It may never be adequate enough. But, I’ll be looking until the day I die.
“…we use Richard Allen Davis, the murderer of Polly Klaas. His intentions were neither survival nor good.”
Sorry, but you’re just not good at logic, I guess. You can’t call something “good” unless you know what is valued first and you’re making assumptions as if they’re simply a universal given and not something just handed down to you. Values you were raised with does not make them inherently right otherwise every culture’s values are equally correct. What makes yours more correct than another’s?? (If you were born a Hun and Polly were a Visigoth, her life would not seem worth much to you!) Human life as the highest value is an assumption and is not actually true in every situation. You’re assuming human life trumps all values. That is what leads you to say this. (And it has nothing to do with his intentions of survival. I don’t even understand how that plays into it other than you’re setting a context that if he killed her for survival it would somehow be justified! Moral relativism again!) The value system is: what is worth more?
I will put it to you in cold, hard terms (this is philosophlical only, so don’t get emotional on me or think I’m uncaring. I’m not.): what makes her life worth more than his pleasure? Your value system? Tell me what is wrong with his value system?
There are a couple of culture memes that play into this: 1) we believe children are innocent. What does that mean exactly? Typically, that is taken to mean that they simply haven’t had much life, which implies it’s less evil if they’re older–if you’re valuable simply because you’re young, which you do not get credit for because you did not choose to be young it happens to you, why are you less valuable as you age?? Is a baby worth more than a 70 year old? If so, on what basis?
2)Again, we value the entitlement to life (unless we’re talking about voting in Iraq which is more important than a 19 year old’s life). Those are values on which you measure good and bad. But they are relative and change with context.
Your assumptions explains why you turn to religion, I believe. You fall back on the traditions you were raised with (or adopted at some point) and it is very hard for you to step out of them even for a brief moment for an academic view. Tradition has become a part of you and in inseparable.
By the way, the whole point on extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence is precisely because of it’s lack of self-evidence. The further you move from something axiomatic (i.e. self-evident, clear to anyone without explanation, inherently observable or understandable by anyone) the more it requires an explanation. That’s all. Some claims simply require more explanation because they move away from common observation and knowledge to the very abstract. Science is not exempt. In fact, science is what rightfuly demands this so not anyone can just say anything and is accepted as truth.
So, the existence of life–or anything, for that matter–is not proof of anything regarding its cause. The child’s father can be, as parents often are, wrong. The virtue of being a parent does not make you more right.
And, finally: faith is another word for the abdication of reason. Faith is a cop out for those who can’t or refuse to think. Someone earlier said that Dyer’s points were not meant to be too closely examined because they lost meaning or got confusing if you analyzed them too much. Perhaps that is because they are confusing and lacking of meaning! If something fails to stand the test of reason perhaps it is because it is because it is unreasonable to begin with. Truth, by definition, stands the test of reason. Therefore, faith cannot be truth because it abdicates reason willfully.
Someone also said earlier that criteria for faith is that it doesn’t need criteria for it to work. If something works than there must be truth to it.
And although truth stands the test of reason, faith will stand the test of time. I agree with you on many points throughout this blog. Just not this one. I think that faith in God will be proven on the day my spirit leaves this body.
To Andrew: Wow. Didn’t mean to offend. Relax. Maybe make yourself a screwdriver
And to Frog: I guess I need to apologize in advance for saying you are a man of faith even though you state that you are. And since JQP skipped this part…David Lee Roth is just more fun to listen to. When Sammy Hagar joined the band they might as well called themselves Journey.
Nez: Uummmmm…we’re cool, I guess.(???) I am a man of faith. I stated that, yes. But I know the definition of faith and I know the defitition of truth.
The point JQP and I differ on is that somewhere along the lines I think the two intertwine. This is not logical, in a literal sense, so we disagree, but so far JQP and I have not offended each other with our statements.
One thing I enjoy about this blog is the civility. It’s cool being able to dicuss differences objectively.
Oh, and finally, Nez…I do agree with you on the point of David Lee Roth:)
“This is not logical, in a literal sense, so we disagree..”
I think you’re misstating this. By faith “knowing” truth you’re actually saying that truth does not need to be tested by any measurement. If a conclusion does not need to be tested, then I can say anything and that makes it true. You have no way to test it so all ideas are equal. If you don’t believe that, then by what test do you apply your knowledge through faith?
“faith will stand the test of time.”
So, if someone believes something for a really, really long time that makes it true?? Time is a test for truth? That’s just silly.
Diamond Dave vs. Sammy: Depends on what you measure it with. Certainly, Dave’s presence was essential to their early rise and he embodied the band’s attitude. However, according to their biography, he never wrote down lyrics, screwed them up all the time, was not productive in the studio and essentially became a drag on the band’s artistic progress. Enter Sammy: 5150 was their biggest selling album. Financially, the years with Diamond Dave couldn’t touch this with a 10 foot pole. Sammy was necessary to elevate them both financially and artistically.
But, Sammy made them Journey-like? Wow, I don’t see that. My opinion is Roth was an ass with the vocal range of a flat tire.
One final point on VH: while I study pretty much anything musical, and I practice rock’s techniques on various instruments and do everything from pick sweeping (which is for weak players, in my opinion) to tapping to Eric Johnson’s string skipping technique (which are really just jazz tenths if you look at it), I’m not really a rock fan. As a trivia collector, I do like to talk about it. But it’s not appropriate here and is unfair to others because it may leave them out of the conversation.
Sammy’s presence made Eddie a better player. His solos were far more intricate (even without the extra dubbing) during Sammy years. And not just because Eddie suddenly had a rhythm guitarist.
By the criteria of “faith,” how does one know that the gospels are true and that L. Ron Hubbard was wrong about Xenu the galactic emperor (which is the basis of Scientology)?
“The mathematical improbability that we are here..”
What is the mathematical probability of existence?
Claiming God created all life is extraordinary in the sense that there is nothing observable or obvious about it. It is 100% abstract.
Andrew, claiming God created everything is of equal abstraction to Xenu the galactic dictator. Extraordinary is a scale from the obvious and observable to the most abstract.
Also, Andrew, if the improbability of life is so high, what is the improbability of the existence of God? They’re they same! You fell into the trap of “first cause” again. That is, if my life is “mathematically” improbable, and you solve this by saying X created me. X is equally improbable! You did not make it more probable you just moved what is improbable.
Van Hagar’s “How do I Know When It’s Love?”, “Love Comes Walking In”, Etc. reminds me of Journey. As opposed to Diamond’s “Running With The Devil” or “Hot For Teacher”…that’s all.
Sorry, I know this isn’t a rock n’ roll blog, so I’ll stop now.
The flat tire remark made me laugh outloud, though
You could say it was a Goodyear for Van Halen, eh?
ok, now I’m done
Doh! OK, I’ll engage you a bit on this since you’re on-line. Don’t you think that the double overdubbing of Alex’s drumming at the beginning of Hot for Teacher is cheesy? It’s so fake. He really can’t play that fast. (My son is a professional drummer and is extremely fast. He was a drumming instructor by the time he was 15, in “Modern Drummer” by 16, and playing for Paul Schaffer (Letterman) in kids commercials by the time he was 17. Now, at 26, he’s all “metal.” So, I picked up a few things about drums along the way.) (Enough parental bragging! Sorry.)
Best of Both Worlds, best song? Summer Nights, most interesting finger picking intro? Top of the World, best solo? Just a thought.
Alex’s drumming is great on that song. Even if Alex couldn’t do it at the time of that recording, I think he can play that fast now. Every band does their share of overdubbing. The process is largely controlled by a producer, which is why bands like Def Leppard take 5-10yrs. between records(remember records?).
That’s why I prefer live albums to studio. I’ve seen 5150 Live years ago and although I wouldn’t put Alex in the same category as Neil Peart, he is one fast son of a gun.
Best of Both Worlds was chessier than the drums on Hot for Teacher because of those damn 80’s keyboards which I thought overshadowed to much of the incredible solo.
Summer Nights could’ve been a Journey song.
Sorry, but doubling up the drumming by overdubbing is definitely not common practice. (Sorry, but I’m pretty familar with studio work. Typically, each piece is on its own track, but drummers do not overdub. Vocalists do. Guitarists do. That’s normal.)
The use of triggers are typical, though. (He uses both triggers and a double overdub in that song.) Many drummers can actually use a double-kick very well and is why they don’t have to resort to dubbing for speed. Sorry, but Alex is nowhere in the league of a Dennis Chambers or Dave Weckle. And, no, he didn’t get better as far as I know. He’s a very rudimentry player. The doubling up on drums on that recording is not widly respected.
As far as bragging on your son…you should be very proud. I am a big fan of Anton Fig(plays w/Letterman now). For your son to play with Paul Schaffer is extremely cool, since Schaffer played with the ultimate legends-The Blues Brothers!!!
Not to mention the Spinal Tap movie. I still throw that in every now and then.
“Best of Both Worlds” has no keyboards in it, best I remember. Are you thinking of “Dreams” perhaps?
Yeah, the Paul Schaffer thing was cool. He flew my son and I out to meet him when he got a hold of a video of my son playing some jazz–he just called us one day out of the blue. (The connection was through a friend and member of Hoobastank. Local pop rock band who are pretty big.). And so I hung out with all these annoying stage parents while my son was in the studio recording. But Lenny Kravitz and his band were there shooting a video and we got to meet them and hang out. It was a pretty big deal for us. My son already had been winning drumming contests and building a name for himself at the time, but exciting nonetheless.
Yeah, now I’m embarrassed for naming the wrong song. During that era many of the songs sounded alike to me. Not just VH, but all bands. Perhaps it was Dreams indeed. Still, a very talented band. I can’t think of any band or artist that I like that didn’t go through some sort of cheese phase.
Tom Petty.
Well, ok. That one:)
Tom Petty: an albino Bob Dylan on depressants. My dog howls more melodically.
“Zer0: What if the object you are aware of has no awareness?”
“Therefore, the object could not be aware of you. Would you still exist?”
Comment by nez — 3/4/2008 #
Nez, It depends on your understanding of awareness.
When I say “awareness” I mean interaction, effecting one another, etc.
Two rocks sitting on a table are aware of each other because they effect each other by mass attraction, by thermal interaction, etc, etc.
So based on this awareness they both exist.
Personally I have no awareness of a “God”. So far I have been able to find logical answers to events that have happened to me. I am aware of a universe which is neither good or bad because I can look at it from both perspectives. It effects me as much as I effect it. So in those terms we are equal.
Can you or those who believe in God consider yourself equal with God?
Wow. I’ve never heard anyone use the word “awareness” before to mean either weak or strong forces of attraction. Awareness connotes consciousness. Just because two things react to one another does not imply awareness. Sorry, Zer0, but when you say two rocks on a table are aware of each other I know we’re off in someone’s fantasy land.
“If you were on a gurney with with all your senses gone, and your capacity to think gone….”
OK, Zer0…somewhere in this sentence I missed how something could be aware.
Here’s a scenario: Two…no, let’s say three rocks are sitting on a table. They exist because they are sitting there. They are not aware of anything because they are rocks. You exist because you are watching the rocks. I am suggesting that awareness has nothing to do with existence.
Your own consciousness is awareness. You’d still be thinking, wouldn’t you?
Has no one here studied (or read about) existentialism or related branches of philosophy? “I think, therefore I am†means specifically that the mere question popping into your head “do I exist?†means you must exist and that you do indeed have awareness. Because you are aware of yourself, otherwise how did you form the question? You mean to tell me you are not aware of your own thinking?
Sorry, I worded that wrong. I meant that the rocks exist, even though they have no awareness.
In Zer0’s example, all senses and thought processes gone, which would mean you’re dead. But your dead body still exists because the people around who are aware can see it.
BUUUTTT, since we are all musicians, I guess we could say,” “I ROCK, THEREFORE I AM!”
“In Zer0’s example, all senses and thought processes gone, which would mean you’re dead. But your dead body still exists because the people around who are aware can see it.”
So, I guess the point is: is that still you? Because that is what we assign to what we call the “person.†I guess if it is whether you believe you are the sum of your cognitive functions or the parts? You can lose a lot of parts of your body and you’re still you. You can lose all your senses and still be you. You can lose your legs and arms and still be you. However, you start losing parts of the brain and you cease to be you. So, much of our identity that we call our “self” is not based in the body parts but the sum of the actions of the functions of the brain. However, I do not believe that dead body is the self anymore. The body exists, but the “self” has shut down and ceases to exist. I believe that the self is the reflexive (i.e. directs back on itself; reflects on its own activity) component of the brain. Let’s look at what the self is by some of its parts.
A large part of the “self” is memory. People who suffer strokes or amnesia (physical injury to the memory parts of the brain) can undergo a major change in identity. The famous Phineas Gage incident (the railroad worker who survived a spike through the head) is case in point. But the self is still there, it didn’t die as a result. But its identity did change with the injury; it was directly affected. That is enough to say that physical memory is a part of the self.
Language is a big part of our internal self, too. The on-going internal monologue starts between 5 and 7 years of age. Recorded cases of feral children raised by wolves in India (1920’s in Midnapore: http://www.feralchildren.com/en/pager.php?df=singh) never developed the internal monologue and even after living in a missionary and learning to speak it never developed with them. The way this was determined was they never developed the ability to initiate conversation other than to ask for food or respond to pain; some physical stimulus. But normally they were silent and would never just start conversing. They appeared empty as in never lost in thought. (I have read that there is a period in our development that if we don’t develop language then we never develop the internal mechanism that is a large part of our thinking and our self. A similar condition can occur in wild birds who naturally learn songs. If they’re isolated from hearing it during a part of their young life, they never learn their natural song even though they’re exposed to it for most of their lives. There is a small window in which it must occur to take hold. Same for humans and language. It is the same reason that kids can grow up to be perfectly bi- or trilingual without any trace of an accent. But they have to be exposed to the languages during that window of development.)
Language in fact also carries so much cultural information that it also becomes a lens in how we view the world. For example, those of Indo-European languages abstract the moon as a face or “green cheese.†In China, however, it is abstracted as a rabbit. That has a lot to do with the structure of the language and not just children are told. It’s also buried in the phrasing. Language has a lot of assumed cultural metaphors built into it that when you learn a second language it is not enough to just speak it, but you also have to see the world through its cultural lens to really nail it. I think it is safe to say that much of our self is in the language because much of our self is how we think and relate to the world.
So, if the part of your brain that is always talking to itself inside were to be damaged on day, how much of your “self†would stay intact? (I am not aware of any research that can answer that well. But I think it is safe to assume that, again, a major shift in the identity of the self would take place.)
I believe this is convincing evidence to at least suggest that the self is built into certain cognitive functions and that what we call the “self†is the totality of all those functions. Take one away, and part of the self goes with it. But not with the totality of the body. It’s like your computer. The thing you think of as your computer is really Windows; the software; the instructions that make it do things. Shut it off, and is it “computing†anymore? No. It’s just a bunch of board etchings.
Bottom line: the “person†is not the dead body only because cognitive activity has ceased. If that dead body has no internal “self†going on inside it, then it is not the part we call the “person.†Like a shut down computer, it become a lump of non-functioning cells.
For those who believe in souls, how would explain if cryogenics turned out to work? That is, is there any reason to believe that a dead body frozen for, say, 200 years and brought back to life would have lost its soul? That brings up all kinds of new questions like if you believe in reincarnation, how would you explain that that soul (the body is completely dead, mind you) didn’t wind up reincarnated? Put another way, if the soul reincarnates during the dead state does that make it physically impossible to revive the body? Do you really believe it couldn’t be brought back to life? Bacteria frozen dead for millions of years have been thawed and successfully came back to life. Their souls didn’t reincarnate.
Frank just laughed out loud.
at the rock, therefore I am comment, I mean.
As you know, I believe in souls. I beleive that soul, or spirit, is the actual person. The body is just the vessel it resides in while on planet Earth. So, I agree that a person who loses part of their vessel, like an arm, they do not really become less of a person. But when the whole thing shuts down, the person(soul) leaves.
Reincarnation; Since I believe in God and that you can’t limit God, reincarnation could happen because God can put a soul wherever He wants. If He wants to take it from one body and put it in another, then He could. In fact, some people believe John the Baptist is still around and will be around for the purpose of witnessing the end of days(I know, I know JQP…just let me finish).
In the case of freezing a vessel and thawing it 200 yrs. later, absolutely. If the body is slowed down enough and frozen intact, it should be preserved just fine, assuming(there’s that bad word again) that it stored at just the right temp. I have actually done this experiment with a fly. Not for 200 yrs. mind you, but for 24 hrs. It supposedly works on butterflies too, but I haven’t done that yet.
If a person leaves the body the body is done. period. If the soul stays, it stays. But I believe the right conditions would sustain a “person”.
Language; Some people are born deaf and dumb. Those are body functions and don’t make you less of a soul. The more languages you know, I guess the smarter the “person” becomes. your body doesn’t get any smarter.
So, no the dead body is not still you. But it exists. Just not as you.
JQP: Do you believe in souls? Since you don’t believe the dead hunk of flesh and bones is still the person.
And since energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change forms where does the energy(i.e. soul) go?
Cryogenics could work, sure. The person leaves the body when the body stops working. And Tom Petty’s not that bad.
In regards to reincarnation, I agree with Nez that since we can’t limit God He could put us wherever He wants. Even in another capsule(body).
This is getting interesting, but Im hopping off this blog due to renovations on my house. The computer must be unhooked and blah, blah, blah…
I look forward to the exciting conclusion when I return.
Best regards…Ribbit!
I just reread your last blog, and it states, “What if a DEAD body was frozen for a period of….”
Well, if the body was dead to begin with, the soul(person) is already gone, so you just have a really cold dead body. If the person was alive to start with, that’s the point I was making about under right conditions, etc. My fly was alive at the start. I don’t remember the temperature off the top of my head as this was done in 1995, but I did it in a regular kitchen freezer. Also, I must point out it didn’t work on the first try(of course). And you eventually get to a point where you freeze them for too long and they never wake up. But at a certain temp. for a certain time, it will somehow sustain it.
what the hell?!?!
i say we all have frog legs for dinner.
Danger!Danger! Will Robinson!
Deepak Chopra is on PBS again. It’s been a very long time since I’ve heard from him so I was tempted to tune in for awhile but he was dressed like a judge on Tyra Banks’ TV show Top Model wearing these sparkling ruby red eyeglasses and I couldn’t focus on anything he said. All I could hear in my head was, “There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home”.
FYI-Jack Van Impe has predicted the tribulation will start in 2012… so tonight the artist formerly known as Prince going to party like it’s… 2011. There has been lot of talk lately about the “end times” and I’m getting very concerned. There is such a thing as a “self-fulfilling prophecy” you know. You get the wrong person in the White House with their finger on the button we all could be singing, “Armageddon to know you, Armageddon to know all about you”. I will be voting for the most secular candidate.
Thank God George Walker Bush can’t run again.
Speaking of thanking God.
A tornado hit this small town in Kansas. One house was totally demolished and one person died. A family member said, “He died instantly,thank God he didn’t suffer.” A nearby house was badly damaged and some people were seriously injured but,”Thank God we’re still alive.” The next house had some damage but, “Thank God no one was hurt”. The last neighbor said, “Thank God it didn’t hit my house.”
Definition of a natural disaster…An Act of God.
Final Thought.
The Patriot Act-“Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither.”
Dyer, Chopra and Robbins are all hucksters who make their money off the emotionally distubed. Try remembering anythng they said a week later – It’s all psychobabble. Incidentally, I saw Chopra on a flight a few years ago – He was flying first class on your money. Buyer beware!
â€JQP: Do you believe in souls? Since you don’t believe the dead hunk of flesh and bones is still the person.â€
There are enough hidden assumptions in the word “soul†that I think I have to be careful and define the parameters first so I convey myself properly.
By soul people mean a metaphysical entity that is independent of the body and separates upon death. Further, the entity is indestructible and, thus, immortal. Right there there are several assumptions in the word. So, the first question is do I believe in the metaphysical? I have to break that down too, though. Metaphysical means beyond the physical. If you take that to mean simply beyond our 5 senses but is still physical (like the subatomic world), then I do indeed believe in things beyond our senses: dark matter, black holes, the subatomic world, etc. But if you take metaphysical to mean literally not just beyond our senses, but not subject to the law of physics, then no. There simply is no evidence to suggest this so I have no reason to consider it any more than the flying spaghetti monster. So, that rules out me believing that there exists in us an entity such defies the laws of physics.
However, if one were to use the word “soul†to simply sum up our cognitive functions, then I could go along with that. If there is no suggestion that it is somehow not subject to the rules of physics (separates and floats around; not affected by time; indestructible; etc.) and simply a semantical shift, then I could agree. But the fact is people throw a lot of assumed baggage into the word “soul†and really is nothing more than one’s wish to somehow transcend the laws of physics.
“I just reread your last blog, and it states, “What if a DEAD body was frozen for a period of….â€
True. Thanks for the correction. Your point conveys what I actually meant.
” There is such a thing as a “self-fulfilling prophecy†you know.”
I absolutely agree. At the turn of 1,000 CE there were mass suicides and civil strife because it was believed to be an end time. There are many “end time hysteria” incidents recorded throughout history. So many that, trust me, this one too (2012) will go down as a non-event in the annals of history.
Don’t you think Y2K was kind of one? A minor one, maybe? I bet Jodee (who seems to come off as somewhat of a survivalist) started buying up canned goods in the expectation of a Y2K collapse. 😉
“…make their money off the emotionally distubed.”
While you and I are on the same side of the argument, I think this statement is inaccurate. (In my opinion.) So many followers of misguided leaders (and many of those leaders I would call disturbed) are actually trying to “reason out” the big questions on life. It is natural to seek out answers and, thus, does not make one disturbed if one gets caught in a body of thought that seems to answer those big questions. The line of disturbance, I believe, is crossed when one completely removes all self-doubt about those answers. That is what leads to problems. Everyone needs a little self-doubt about their answers. Everyone.
And, ironically, Dyer promotes “removing all doubt†about his view and says that once it becomes a “knowing†(his words) then it becomes a reality. This is the problem. Saying you are so freaking sure of yourself that everyone else should remove all doubt about what you are saying is wrong on so many levels. I have an issue with anyone that says that. Even for science; even for all the points I personally make–and I’m just a little guy with some opinions that I believe can be well backed through logic and observation. But everyone has not only a right to doubt me, but should. I see skepticism as a virtue not something to eschew. If anything I say is to be correct, it only it would because it stands the test of your arguments and skepticism, not because I say it. And vice versa. I do not have the market cornered on understanding. Not buy a long shot. And anyone who claims it is full of it.
So, I cannot broad brush so many well meaning individuals as “disturbed†simply because I think they are wrong about a lot of things. But I do fault Dyer and Chopra so suggest “don’t doubt me.â€
One point of clarity on Cryogenics: yes, they have to freeze a live body (which I incorrectly stated as an initial state of dead), but that is to preserve the tissue to be brought back to a function state. You can’t expect the tissue to function if it is damaged. But I believe the frozen body is not alive because it has no brain waves. Is that correct? Or is there a functioning brain?
Hello Friends,
Long time no speak. I’ve done my best to review what I’ve missed since I last posted. Very happy to see things are still flowing and interesting. Huge kudos to the likes of JQP, Jodee, and Dave B. (esp. JQP) for defending the only thing that keeps a civilized society civilized. REASON. LOGIC. SCIENCE.
Anyway it’s good to be back. I took a short trip the events of which I’d like to briefly relate. I actually went to see our dubious DR D., and you know what, I have been converted! Praise the God of INTENTION! Oh doubters beware! The good Dr. has opened thine eyes. I must warn you all now if you shalln’t (that’s how “shall not” is contracted in Biblespeak) accept the TRUTH in the power of INTENTION you shall, perhaps, truly, burn in the fires of “Denial of Intention Hell!”. Anyway now that I got that off my chest (I promised Wayney, yes we are on a first name basis, don’t be jealous because that too will put you in dem dere fires, I would relay the message)let me tell you what happened. How I have been ENLIGHTENED! Me and Wayney actually had a super one on one in his stupendo supermagnifico Hawaii abode. It really is most humble. I must confess however that at one point during our meeting (you are soooo jealous I know) both Wayney and I used our combined power of intencion (that’s Spanish) to summon the most luscious pair of toe suckers. Let’s just say I won’t need to clean my little piggies anytime soon. Ah the power of intention. But I digress. What happened was (for a mere $3000, that is all he charged me for the one on one)we sat in his living room (he stressed to me that this was a real LIVING room and I confess I felt ALIVE, as opposed to dead that is) and we sat there, and, we sat there, and the two of us (actually the three of us as his daughter appeared from a hidden bookcase when the Dr. hit a button on his humble polished marble vitamin water table and sung a beauteous hymn of intention as we sat there in our state of intention), and, well Goddamnit, we intended like crazy! The next thing you know (I just followed his lead BTW as far as the INTENTION for he is the master) the great Dr. Dyer had intended us right onto another planet. Yes my friends we were, in fact, on Mars! I’m here to tell you Mars supports life. So we sat there in our (sorry his) Mar’s Hawaii abode, and we sold the “whole Goddamn Enchilada” to every freakin’ Martian on the planet. Hey, and guess what? Deeprak Chopra was there and Benny Hinn and Swaggart, and Ron Popeil and a few others. They’re all really Martians! Who’da thunkit? BTW me and Ronnie Pope musta sold at least ten or twenty thousand of them roaster things. “Just set it and…well you know the rest.” Them little green guys love them things. Anyway I’m back, and if anybody would like to go to Mars me and Wayney will be intending our way there again in about a month so save up your ducats! Wayney said for me to collect the dough. I’ll post the mailing address shortly. Discount rate of $2000 for those who act now.
Just wanted to respond to some of the comments I’ve read. Reggie. I think, with all due respect, that you’re claim of JQP being negative is about the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. When someone engages in a debate and expects sound reasoning in his debatee in so far as backing up his argument, why that’s not negativity that’s just smart. The negativity arises out of the attack on the one claiming negativity. Just because one does not agree with your point of view does not make him negative. Please, if you can defend your claims with sound reasoning then you won’t run into such a problem, but to label one as negative merely because they disagree with you is very simply, pathetic. I would hope that you would not just blindly accept anything I said, just because.
Havea grt Day. You mentioned me way back when, just wanted to say hi. Peace, love, butterflies, incoherency, all that good stuff.
Andrew. While I appreciate some of your ideas and I can see the humor in your joke about evolving from mud the truth is it’s a little bit more complicated than that. As much as you hate to accept it all these scientific theories including evolution are based on some very hard evidence. Outside of high school science class one can, if one wishes to explore it further read up on the science of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, archeology etc. and so on and one will find some extremely compelling information to support all these silly theories including evolution. As far as your nonsensical mathematical probablity statement WTF are you talking about? Again, in that dept., if you feel so compelled you can read Newton’s Principia Mathematica which is a.k.a Mathematical Principles of NATURAL Philosophy. Yes natural, meaning nature, meaning they all tie in with one another, that is the math supports the science and vice-versa, or one can just believe in whatever suits their fancy, makes them feel good, but yet has no basis in reality. I have nothing against faith, but if you really want to laugh well there you have it. The idea that life began in a pool of slime, sorry “mud” if that suits your humour, wherein various elements combined to make one celled organisms, and then over many many millions of years evolved into higher and higher life forms, well that makes alot more sense than “it’s true just because”. It didn’t happen overnight Andrew. That being said I respect your views. BTW, C.S. Lewis’ Problem of Pain, good read.
JQP. Liked your comment about not neccessarily needing to live forever. There is a great short story for those interested by Martin Amis I believe called The Immortals which although it is fiction is very telling in its ideas on humanity and the nature of man. Also very funny and intriguing. Two other works I’d like to mention of which you are probably familiar, and which speak to some of the discussion here on religion, Christianity, and the realm of death are Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inqiquisitor from his novel The Brother’s Karamazov and Edward Becker’s great work The Denial of Death. I won’t go into detail on these two unless someone is interested in further discussion on either. Thanks all for your time.
JHB
“…summon the most luscious pair of toe suckers. Let’s just say I won’t need to clean my little piggies anytime soon.”
Okay. We now know a little more about John Henry than we probably wanted to.
I read Denial of Death long ago (in fact, that was a little bit of the backdrop for some of my arguments about immortality), but I remember thinking it went a little far when the author claimed even schizophrenia was a reaction to our mortality. I agree that a lot of depression and other mental ailments are, but I think schizophrenia is more physiological than emotionally based. Having an in-law who has suffered from schizophrenia for over 40 years, it is not something they can just snap out of with the right attitude. Also, after her first breakdown, her whole physiognomy changed. Her face became almost unrecognizable as her personality shifted suggesting physical bodily changes. Other physical changes occured to, that normally aren’t discussed, like she developed a strong body odor she never had before. (Sounds funny, and a number of jokes do come to mind, but it was true!) We discussed this as a family and agreed that it wasn’t changing in bathing habits or something like that, but more evidence that something physiological was going on. What causes someone’s physiology to change almost overnight like that, I have no idea. (I can hear Andrew now: “She’s possessed and that’s the smell of Satan!†And the cure, Andrew? “The Power of Christ Compels You!†“The Power of Christ Compels You!†“The Power of Christ Compels You!†;-))
The 2008 truth behind some Dr. D quotes:
“I’ve just been out there doing what seems to make the most sense to me and letting go of the outcome.â€
Truth behind this: Don’t think about consequences, do what feels good at the time.
Implication: If driving fast seems to make sense when you’re drunk, do it.
“If you think about shortages, you’re going to attract more shortage! If you think about what’s missing, you’re going to attract more of what’s missing in your life.â€
Truth behind this: Frugality just makes debt worse. Focus on making more instead and stop budgeting.
“Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal him.â€
Truth behind this: Homeless people are not victims of circumstances. Rather, their circumstances reveal how badly they really are at managing their lives.
“Love what you do. Do what you love.â€
Truth behind this: The world doesn’t need porta-potty cleaners. Civilization only needs poets, writers, zen masters, and, oddly enough, motivational speakers. Or any occupation that makes you feel good.
Implication: Don’t pursue more revenue in your business that benefits window washers, custodians, and security guards, rather stay where it feels best for you.
“The state of your life is nothing more than a reflection of your state of mind.â€
Truth behind this: The destitute suffer from a destitute state of mind. It’s their own fault.
“You can set yourself up to be sick, or you can choose to stay well.â€
Truth behind this: Sickness is a choice. And if you do choose sickness, choose big like Wayne: a heart attack.
“Go for it now. The future is promised to no one.”
“Anything you really want, you can attain, if you really go after it.”
Truth behind this: Throw caution to the wind and don’t manage your life in proportion to how long you’ll most likely live. Spend that 401K today because tomorrow never comes.
“I am realistic – I expect miracles.”
Sorry, but this one is just stupid. I defy him to name one miracle he’s actually witnessed. If he says something banal like “the birth of my child,†I’ll show him a miracle with my foot because that is not what he actually means. What he means are events that defy the laws of causality and child birth does not qualify.
JQ,
All that toe stuff-just my attempt at humor. I know you got it, but just in case the rest of the world… The stuff about Mars is all true.
Interesting that you should mention the schizophrenia thing in Denial of Death. Your views are somewhat akin to what I was thinking when I read the book which was only recently-this year. I was perusing the current Almanac of Pulitzer prize winners, and that’s where I found it. I agree with you on schizophrenia being a physiological affliction. That is, I believe there is some very real haywire chemistry going on in the brain of the true schizophrenic. However, this is a very complex physiological/psychological situation of which we speak. I am most definitely a humble layman with no medical background outside of my own personal consumption of reading material which is constant and ongoing. I would like to say this though JQ, I was thinking at the time I read Becker’s work, which I have to admit floored me, or as my good friend in Queens might say, “it took the top of my head off”, that what may be happening in some of those poor souls who suffer from schizophrenia is that a physiological mechanism is put into motion within the brain by a psycholgical response to outside stinuli. I’m trying my best here to express myself please bear with me. In other words perhaps in the mind of the schizophrenic there exists the physiological makeup for becoming a schizophrenic and “all” it takes is the proper (really improper) set of emotional triggers (surely negative life experiences based upon a calvacade of built up/pent up neurosis summoned by the “victim” in order to deal with the harsh realities of existence) to start that stone rolling into the oblivion of a schizophrenic soul. what we have then is a dual action causality that leads to schizophrenia: i.e. mind and matter. My apologies J if I was not as cogent as I should have been. I have an abiding interest in the schizophrenic as one of the main characters in my novel in progress suffers accordingly.
Hey if you get the chance, and I don’t know obviously your reading tastes, check out that Amis shorty story I mentioned “The Immortals”. I’d be curious as to your take on it.
Honestly, when you consider what those quotes are really saying, isn’t it sort of “10 easy steps to ruining your life?” I know that is not what he intends, but self-defeating consequences are the most likely result intended or not. (A reason why intention is not always more important than outcome.)
Let’s look at a tenet that is consistent throughout all his writing: “live like you only have 8 months to live.” (He has some reason for picking exactly 8 months. Something about it being just the right balance of not too soon and not too late.) The point is that faced with your immediate mortality, you will learn to appreciate what you have and make decisions that are more in line with your true desires and less about social pressures and aspirations. But is it really a way to improve your life? After all, depending on your age, you’re most likely going to live way past the next 8 months. Therefore, there is a lot more future that probably you want to secure today. The often quoted aphorism, “tomorrow never comes,†is a self-deluding play on words that is not even accurate. Tomorrow does indeed become today. Not anticipating the events of tomorrow is one sure way to ruin one’s life. Of course, it’s best to strike a balance between living for today and saving for tomorrow, but living like there’s no tomorrow is an absolutely unrealistic basis for making decisions. If you’re 30, you’re probably much better to work and save as if you’re going to be alive the next 50 years than the next 8 months. It is those later years where you will need it the most. Let’s look at an example of this close to Wayne’s home. His good friend, Ram Dass.
Ram has now spent the last 40 years “living for today.†(You can check this and read for yourself about his conversion to “guru†around 1967.) Today, at around 70 years of age (not really that old by today’s standards—just look at congress), he suffers from aphasia caused by a stroke. He is now wheelchair bound, cannot speak well and he earned his living as a speaker so this is a real hit to his ability to draw an income. And his has no health insurance and no savings! He now must be taken care of.
So, Ram traded taking care of his future in his youth for being a burden in his later years because he “lived like he had only 8 months to live.†Had he lived like he had 40 years to go instead, he most likely would be in much better financial shape today.
No, I do feel for Ram’s situation and I am not trying speak ill of him. But I am holding him up as an example of not worrying about outcome and living for today. I am also saying he is case in point for not taking his poorly thought out advice. It is simply not a smart way to run your life. So, is Dyer’s advice really a way to improve your life? Does playing mental games and making yourself face your immediate mortality really help you make better decisions?
Let’s look at the other point of facing your immediate mortality: increased appreciation of life. I don’t think there’s any denying there is truth to that. It is typical that after a near death experience (surviving a car accident, say) to realize how much value you place in your family and friends. But is pretending like you only have 8 months to live the right away to go about it? Again, my point is about balancing your reaction to mortality proportionally to how much time you really most likely have left. Do you really want to live each and every day like you escaped a fatal car accident? That is an emotional level that is not only difficult to sustain year after year, but will become decidedly annoying to everyone around thus actually driving them away not closer.
The fact is the best way to govern your life as it relates to your mortality is to keep it in perspective and have a realistic assessment about your longevity. Tomorrow does come and sacrificing things today in order to accommodate its arrival is realistic and a very sound move. Additionally, you’re also helping others with it because you’re avoiding becoming a financial burden to them later on. It doesn’t take much to realize that this kind of advice is actually a way to ruin your life. Just look at Ram Dass.
No, John Henry, I thought that was well put. I agree with you that there most likely is also an emotional component that is “based upon a cavalcade of built up/pent up neurosis.” Absolutely. (I’m sure it’s varying degrees from case to case, and I have no formal background in this either, so it is merely a layman’s opinion.) In my story about my in-law, I did leave out one part of the story because I think it is accurate to emphasize the physiology of it all (which I don’t think some appreciate or consider unless they’ve actually been around someone afflicted–the sudden change in appearance, for example, is startling). However, there was an emotional part as well and she had a lot of issues around a strong religious upbringing (take note, Andrew, not everyone responds well to having religion shoved down their throat. So tread lightly with your children).
She was dragged to holy-roller faith healing churches as a child. In her adulthood, she became more agnostic and not too religious. (Mind you, this is someone I was very close to and grew up knowing. I witnessed her descent into madness first hand, not at a distance.) However, when she snapped the first time (i.e. she went completely catatonic and had to be committed because she just completely quite responding to anything) it was over issues of her relationship with God. (I talked to her at length during these years, and that is what she told me.) She just completely lost all perspective about life and was ridiculously oversensitive to everything from it suddenly raining to people hanging up Halloween decorations. Everything that happened was God responding to her directly; everything centered on her—and not only in a negative way, which is another point overlooked by some. Sometimes she was ridiculously elated over things she didn’t actually have. So, it wasn’t always the world out to get her, but at other times (during different personalities) it was the whole world was rewarding her. Either way (positive or negative), it was the same: a profound lose of perspective.
Some might write this off as bipolar disorder (which I’m sure was a part of it), but it was much more because with each personality change all the details and history of her life would change with it. Her entire being would almost completely change overnight. This went even as far as she used to sneak around at night and scrawl writings on her children’s bedroom walls about God. These kids would wake up to big messages written on their walls like “God has power over evil! God has power over you!†It was frightening. We did get the kids taken away from her and she has been in and out of institutions ever since. I have not seen her since for over 35 years, but her about her once in a while.
Admittedly, this made me like religion even less than I did. By the way, her kids all grew up fine. (They’re all middled aged now.) All are really well adjusted people and, not surprisingly, want nothing to do with religion. No religion in their life (after that experience) is just fine with them. I keep in very close contact with them (we’re all good friends and go camping and desert biking together), so I know this to be true. In our family, religion has a very bad name and not having it has shown to be a much healthier parenting model than what we saw with it. (My parents were not religious, so I was never subjected to the drama of a judgmental fire-hurling god as a child.)
So, there was an emotional part it that did have something to do with mortality, but more as it related to how she thought God was going to judge her more than death itself.
By the way, my posts will probably be absent soon (I can hear some cheering! And are those folks over there doing a wave??) as I’m gearing up for some volunteer work that is going to take me somewhere in Vietnam for a few months. (I get all the garden spots!) I don’t where I’m going just yet (or what my role will be), but from the sounds of it there won’t be any internet much less wifi. So, when I drop off in a few weeks it doesn’t mean I’ve lost interest in our conversations. No, I like them and will be back.
After reading a years worth of postings I’m dazed. I rememeber my mother saying “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”, and “learn when to keep your mouth shut”.
Folks, if the shoe fits, wear it!
My GOD, There are an awful lot of folk out there who spent a lot of time expounding their mostly negative opinions, about a fellow(Dyer), who is helping PBS raise money. Why don’t you-all do the same?
WOW! take note, Andrew, not everyone responds well to having religion shoved down their throat. So tread lightly with your children).
Your story is very familiar to me. My mother became pregnant by my father when they were 17 and 16 respectively. This was early seventy’s, before abortion was legal. My grandfather just started a real estate business in a small town that was so successful that he was listed in the book of whose who because of the amount he sold in the first year. I think you know where this is going. Both my maternal and paternal grandparents sat down and decided what to do. Their decision was to fly my mother to London and have an abortion. My grandfather was in charge of escorting her. Once they returned my mother left with my father and they cried in their car.
I was born in 1974. The first break down of my mother that I’m aware of was in 1982. My mom had an episode in 1985 that almost killed my brother and myself.
I grew up with this as well. My mother quoted religion as well. She would always say “Be gone satan!” to me. Her last episode which was 5 years ago began with her on her ex husband’s front porch at 3 in the morning. She thought he was my grandmother, her mother. She kept shouting random scripture and calling him an evil bitch.
This is another obvious reason among many to turn away from religion. But would I evaluate the power of romantic love based on a neighbor’s abusive marraige?
You said her kids are well adjusted. Even though she obviously did not tread lightly. We are able to endure great amounts of pain and suffering and yet still heal from those wounds. I wore this pain like a noose around my neck. It was only exasperated by my father’s anger. He would yell at me, usually when he was drunk “You’re never gonna amount to nothing!” (which didn’t make sense to me since it’s a double negative, but it got the point across)
It was when I was about 20 that I learned about my mom’s abortion. Then it started to make sense to me that my parents were holding on to this pain from their youth. I can look back and see how a decision can have such a profound impact. This decision over 35 years ago has affected so many in differing ways. But it’s not just the decision. Because bad decisions are a part of life. You will make them or have made them. Even JQP. Once I learned to forgive my parents, I felt a huge relief. I learned that forgiving someone is actually for the forgiver and not so much the forgivee.
I don’t like to bore everyone with my personal experiences, but I want to let you know that I do take note. It’s been carved deeply into my soul by my parents.
(I can hear Andrew now: “She’s possessed and that’s the smell of Satan!†And the cure, Andrew? “The Power of Christ Compels You!†“The Power of Christ Compels You!†“The Power of Christ Compels You!†;-))
I’m not sure if that joke is meant for me or if it’s an insult to my intelligence. It’s becoming more difficult to decipher in this blog. There seems to be a stereoypical indictment of my faith.
As much as you hate to accept it all these scientific theories including evolution are based on some very hard evidence.
I agree. I admit, when JQP said we are all linked by dna, it made me rethink my position. I felt duped and mentally violated by my own religious views. There was a gallup poll taken in 2004 that I found the results for. 45% of Americans believe in the young earth creation. This number represents a deep fear. I believe it’s a fear of truth. Truth like forgiveness can be very painful. But there is truth on both sides of the table.
Dragon Slayer, you might be surprised to know that originally PBS did not allow commercial motivational speakers to peddle their wares on their network. But after a drop in membership, they lowered their standard and allowed Dyer (and some other I read about another) in an effort to compensate for lost revenue. It was a controversy with many dedicated viewers and a lot of the PBS audience see it as a big sell out and I’ve read it has cost them even more membership cancellations. You don’t think Dyer is nothing more that a large infomercial peddling his books and CDs? If you were going to save the world from the nattering nabobs of negativity, would you do it by peddling fairly expensive products on television?
In my opinion, PBS did indeed sell out and should not allow these Tony Robbins’ clones to run one long advertisement.
â€I rememeber my mother saying ‘If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all’, and ‘learn when to keep your mouth shut’. Folks, if the shoe fits, wear it!â€
Is that saying something nice? If so, it’s somehow lost.
As far as your nonsensical mathematical probablity statement WTF are you talking about? I was referring to the Anthropic principle. Many different coincidences in our universe that must have needed to be met in order to provide life. I believe I listed the evidence before and I’m sure you could tell me if this accepted as plausible.
Jodee I’m having trouble finding the periodicals about Horus and Isis. If you could please reveal your documentation I would appreciate it. Since I have been finding info that has probably been compromised by Christian authors.
“You said her kids are well adjusted. Even though she obviously did not tread lightly.”
I meant it didn’t seem to be genetic, for one, and they were not exposed to it long enough to have any affects. That’s all I was saying.
“I’m not sure if that joke is meant for me or if it’s an insult to my intelligence.”
The only thing I was teasing you about was your admitted belief in Satan. It seemed fitting at the time. If you think it is a comment about “intelligence,” you’re being overly sensitive.
” I believe it’s a fear of truth.”
Since it is based on incorrect math and “faith,” which has absolutely no criteria for determining truth from flasehoods, how can you call it truth? By what test did it pass that allowed you to deem it “truth?” Just the fact that you think so?
those damn italics again, I guess I should really preview before I post.
I took your advice Zen, I mean Nez, except it wasn’t a screwdriver, we did some saki bombs last night to take the edge off. It was my friend’s 30th birthday too. SAKI!
Good luck in Vietnam JQP. I’m sure you will be deeply missed here. Not just the members of this blog, but your family and friends as well. I will pray for you. It can’t hurt.
“Because bad decisions are a part of life. You will make them or have made them. Even JQP.”
I’m not sure what this is in reference to. Did I claim bad decisions are not a part of life? If I did, I was mistaken, but I don’t think I did. The case of my in-law had nothing to do with bad decisions unless you consider the decisions of her parents. But I said it was more physical than emotional and that the emotional part really only came into play later through guilt, but not guilt because of “bad decisions,” but incorrect guilt placed by her parents. Just to “forgive and forget” is to not understand her illness or what I was saying at all.
Thank you for the kind words, Andrew.
No, sorry for that addition. It was more reverence than anything else. I was loosely inferring that bad decisions are made by everyone even those who may be held in high regard.
†I believe it’s a fear of truth.â€
I’m referring to the 45% or so who have a very hard time accepting evolution as a fundamental principle underlying biology. Or any other idea that may be percieved as conflicting with our theology. Galileo said “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
â€I am suggesting that awareness has nothing to do with existence.â€
Zer0, then I think you have to qualify “the existence of what, exactly?†That’s because “existence†is in philosophy used to mean “the existence of awareness†(especially self awareness). But they are not synonyms: awareness is a noun, and exists is the verb. But no one would argue that “your body exists†or “that table exists†either. Your statement is baffling to me, Zer0, because I think what you trying to really say is the awareness is not metaphysical, but I’m not sure. So, back to basics: existence means something is “there.†“Awareness†is a something that can be “there.â€
Actually, I don’t even have a good guess at what you’re trying say, because awareness and existence just are not synonymous.
Comment on the “negativity:” I don’t get those who drop by and complain (ironically) about the negativity of this blog. First, while there is occasional mud slinging, it is nowhere near that of many blogs that get into religion, politics or philosophy. In most of those blogs, swearing and wishing people would “die” are regular commentary. So, I guess they’re new to the blogging world.
Second, most of the contributers in the blog are actually examining various ideas more than mud slinging. Many apparently take close scrutiny as “negative.” Again, we’re not supposed to question the guy on the soapbox.
â€I am suggesting that awareness has nothing to do with existence.â€
JQP, I am pretty sure that I did not make the above statement. I don’t know where you got this from. If you find my post with the above statement please point me to it.
My apologies, Zer0. That was nez’s point.
JQP,
I appreciate the personal info. in regard to the illness (schizophrenia) in your past family life. It was very enlightening. I would like to comment more, but don’t have time right now, but will return.
Andrew, thanks as well for personal info. It was not boring. OK I see now a little better where you are coming from w/ your math idea. Also seems like you appreciate science more than I thought you did.
Again will respond and contribute more when I have more time.
JQ have a nice trip. Who will man the battleship when you go?
One other thing. To all who claim negativity on this blog. Get over it. This is just good healthy debate,healthy because we can learn alot from one another. and as they say if you can’t take the heat…
it’s just a matter of formulating a good argument then one will not be challenged so vehemently which is what spawns these accusations of negativity.
It’s all good!
ok, this whole awareness/existence thing is confusing to me as I am not a scientist. If rocks have no awareness, but they do exist, how is it that you must be aware to exist?
Is it because rocks have awareness on a microscopic level, due to the molecules that make up the minerals of the rocks. Again, I’ll admit my ignorance up front, as I know nothing much about science. I googled Dr. dyer and stumbled upon this blog and it was the most interesting I’ve read. Not to mention funny. So anyway how are rocks aware again?
I took “awareness” in that context to mean the gravitional force of attraction. That when one rock is in the gravitional field of another, it reacts (which would be such a small reaction that I’m not sure of the significance) so I’m assuming Zer0 is claiming that one rock, in a way, “knows” about the other. That is my best quess. Zer0 would have to answer.
Or it could mean: Two rocks were sitting on a table and the big rock turned to the little rock and said, “You’re too young to be stoned.â€
Do you believe that when your 8 year old child asks for bubble gum they are being abusive to and you need to learn to handle that “abuse?†Do you believe that if you do laundry for your 8 year old that that child is abusing you?
Wayne Dyer does think that child is being abusive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKAiteiVL5Y&feature=related
–or–
Search for “How to Handle Abusive People – Wayne Dyer†on http://www.youtube.com
I now realize what failures my wife and I were as parents.
Shazam,
JQP’s guess is correct.
When I say awareness I mean mass attraction, energy interactions (thermal, radiational, etc.), and all other known and unknown forms of interaction. So one object will be influenced by another in some form, however small.
For human awareness if there was no interaction how would anybody be aware of anything around them?
Awareness comes from interaction and is the same for animate and inanimate objects.
Since humans can share experiences (awarenesses) then they may be indirectly aware of the existence of things that they are not directly aware of.
So in short, what I am saying is that if the surroundings are aware of the object, that object exists.
So in a universe where only A and B could exist
If A is aware of B —- A and B exist (because by becoming aware of B, A becomes aware of itself)
If B is aware of A —- A and B exist (same logic as above)
If A is not aware of B —- A and B do not exist (because without awareness of B, A has no awareness of itself, no interaction)
I hope I was able to explain my thoughts.
The only thing I’d say, Zer0, is the conscienceness is reflexive and gravity is not. That is, conscienceness needs nothing else to be aware of itself. It doesn’t need a B.
In fact, why conscienceness is relexive is a big mystery and gives fodder to those who believe in souls. But that conscienceness can reflect back on itself is pretty much undisputed. But I’ve read various articles that say it is an illusion, and it very well could be. But nonetheless, it is a very distinct quality from gravity.
Since gravity is proportional to density (mass / volume), is it being suggested that consciousness is a function of density? That would be odd (avoiding any jokes about density and the brain) if nothing else because of the neural synapse. That is, a neuron is mostly a big space between the axons.
How much energy would you think is needed for something to become aware? I know there are different levels of awareness, like plants are aware of which direction the sun is located, animals are aware of instinctual things like what is hot and cold; but how much energy is needed to be aware on a human level?
I guess I’m looking for the “x-factor.” Is there a name for it?
The amount of energy is dependent on the sensitivity of the receptor. There is a threshold level below which the sensor does not register a signal.
The sensitivity of consciousness probably varies from person to person but it may also have a minimum threshold sensitivity.
I disagree with JQP’s statement ” …conscienceness needs nothing else to be aware of itself. It doesn’t need a B.”
Only after becoming aware of B does the self awareness start. After that there is no need for B, because A has discovered itself and now has self consciousness (the distinction between self and everything outside self).
After realizing that the self cannot exist without the non-self (everything but the self), the self consciousness becomes consciousness.
Draw a triangle on a piece of paper. The 3 edges of the triangle separate the area inside the triangle from the area outside the triangle. If you get rid of the space outside of the triangle you automatically destroy the triangle and the space inside, because the space inside was defined by the edges of the triangle whose existence (role, definition, etc.) was defined by the areas outside and inside it’s 3 edges. If there is no more outside area then what is the triangle defining? Nothing, therefore it does not exist.
So you still need A & B, A being the inside and B being the outside of the triangle for awareness and consciousness.
Consciousness is a major function of awareness.
The more aware you are of self and non-self, the “denser” is your awareness and consciousness. 🙂
Zer0: Are you saying then that knowledge is awareness? If so, what is the desire for knowledge called?
And is energy and consciousness the same thing, then? In humans, I mean.
If your brain was the only thing that existed in the universe, it would be aware that it exists and that it is thinking. In fact, philosophers point out that really the only thing you cannot doubt is your own doubt–your own self-awareness. That you can construct an argument to doubt the existence of any external thing (you can say senses lie and so on), but the one thing you know for sure is your ability to doubt. That does indeed exist and it had nothing to do with the awareness of anything else.
Self-awareness can exist in the mind where there absolutely no and has never been sensory input. Otherwise, you’d be saying that a person without sensory input was not aware of himself. Surely, you can see that would not be true. Internally, he would be thinking just like anyone else (even without the internal monologue of language). There was no difference of “self” awareness for Helen Keller than anyone else. Awareness of her surroundings, yes, but not herself. That is one thing I am sure she knew existed.
That is the truly unique aspect of consciousness: it is reflexive; it can examine itself. That means A only needs A to examine its state. You’re saying could not be reflexive until it is in the presence of something else? How so? What evidence is there to suggest that mind cannot examine its own thinking unless in the presence of something external?
I may not be asking my question clearly. I am searching for the definition of the word “energy” as it applies to the human thought process or awareness. I agree after reading these blogs that you don’t need to be aware of something else to be aware of yourself. But, y’ know…What’s causing all this?
The presence of mind does not arise from external sources. It exists *before* the processing of external sources.
“I am searching for the definition of the word “energy†as it applies to the human thought process or awareness. I agree after reading these blogs that you don’t need to be aware of something else to be aware of yourself.”
I agree that we are not starting with proper and well understood definitions. That to equate consciousness with “energy” is an assumption at best. To me, that is the beginning point: show that awareness has anything to do with “energy?” And, of course, you have to start by defining “energy” and then show the subsequent relationship with awareness.
On point of caution: because something *produces* energy, does not mean it *is* energy.
When i think of “energy”, I think of the source giving the command. I’ve heard that when Brain surgeons press on a certain part of a patients’ brain, the arm will move. I also know when I send a message to my brain to move my arm, it moves.
But where is the “energy” or “commander” located in the brain? What sends those signals to begin with?
Is this “commander” neccessary to be aware?
What makes us different from a well programmed robot? I know, I sure do ask a lot of questions. These are not “set-up questions”. I am at a point in life where I seek answers.
“I am at a point in life where I seek answers.”
And I’m at a point in my life where I realize that I don’t have any–and that neither does anyone else. (Thus, my issue with those on the soapbox proclaiming to all the world they have it figured out.)
Actually, Shazam, there is one answer that I have learned to be consistently valid through my 59 years on earth: most people are full of it. Those who claim extraordinary ideas, typically turnout to be wrong. By that I do not mean at all that all extraordinary ideas are wrong. Not at all. But statistically as it has been in my life (all the claims of catastrophes, conspiracies, economic calamities, famines, levitating, spoon bending, mind reading, fortune telling, visits from the other side) by and large all have proved invalid at one point or another rather than proved valid. We were supposed to have a famine strike in 1975 because the population was outgrowing agricultural yield. Turned out yield was actually far out pacing population grown and we wound up with a surplus. We were supposed to have the greatest depression ever in 1990 (Ravi Bhatra) because of the “30 year cycle theory†and a confluence of other economic factors. (Very similar to the 2012 predictions.) Wrong! The nineties turned out to be one of great prosperity, not depression. The federal government was supposed to be bankrupt by 1995 because of it’s spending (Harry Figgy, Jr.). Wrong! We wound up with a federal surplus instead. And, then Y2K was going to be another dark age. Again, it was wrong. And so on. (I could cite so many more, but those are the first to come to mind.)
Now, I know those are not the questions you’re talking about. You’re talking about the big ones, I assume. But the same applies to them. All the religious leaders that have gone to jail or cried on television to raise millions for themselves or had everyone drink to kool-aid to go to heaven or dress up in black and commit suicide so they could catch the next comet to follow an alien spaceship or claim they can heal through “quantum thought†or claim they can create miracles, are all examples of how much those on soapboxes are full of crap and how so many millions will, unbelievably, follow them. I’ve learned that skeptics turn out to be right more often than not. And seeing things with clarity is so much more important to me than deluding myself into warm fuzzy thinking. So, forgive my “grumpy old man cynic†attitude, but really the one thing I can count on is those proclaims to have the big answers to the big questions are full of crap. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be asking them and seeking answers. No, they still need to be sought.
Correction to one of my numerous typos:
“…those proclaiming to have the big answers…”
JQP, I’m starting to wonder about you.
“The presence of mind does not arise from external sources. It exists *before* the processing of external sources.”
So what you are saying is that the mind exists without the body.
Aren’t you the same guy that was making fun of the tribe that believed in ghosts that stole watches?
So now you believe that there is a “mind” that exists independent of everything else in the universe and somehow is aware of itself and the universe? Has no form or weight? Has no sensory input?
You might as well go hide your watch under a rock so my mind won’t come and still it. 🙂
Let me turn the tables around (usually you’re the one that wants proof of what I say). What proof do you have to back up your statement. I need concrete physical proof, the kind you ask of me.
Let’s go to a mortuary and find out what the dead are thinking about themselves. 🙂
Case in point: http://www.be-psychic.com/psychic/?pu=false
What is the difference between these proclaimations and Dyer’s or Chopra’s? The only difference I see is Dyer uses fewer exclamations points in his advertisements.
“So what you are saying is that the mind exists without the body.”
No, I’m saying the computer has to be on before it can process input. No functioning mind, no processing. So, just the opposite. If the mind if function, it is already aware. It must be aware before it can process sensory input.
Sorry. Correction: “If the mind is functioning, it is already aware.”
Since when has switching your mind on have anything to do with sensory input?
Your claim is awareness doesn’t begin until sensory input. Clearly, the mind can function with absolutely no sensory input. I don’t understand how you can dispute that. (When your computer is on, is it computing before you input anything? Yes! It is computing away without you typing a thing! Being “aware” of something else does not “boot up” the mind. It was already on and aware.)
“No functioning mind, no processing. So, just the opposite. If the mind if function, it is already aware. It must be aware before it can process sensory input.”
So how does the mind turn on? Who or what tunes it on? Does it turn itself on?
Can it be turned off? How?
I need answers JQP.
The brain is the *processor* of sensory input, not sensory input itself.
And the brain is such an evolved *processor* it can process it’s own processing. Like programs that can examine their own code. In fact, such programs don’t even need input because they themselves *are* the input. Which is distinct and separate from external input.
JQP: Thanks for the honesty. Now if I could just find out what it is that makes us want to be honest:)
Good luck on your journeys.
“So how does the mind turn on? “
I don’t believe you can pinpoint a time. It is a continuously evolving process since inception. Running the clock backwards, the functions that comprise your “mind†slowly dissolve into an un-functioning state of primitive cell activity.
It is really an *accumulation of functionality* that fade into higher levels of functionality. One function builds on the other. It is continuous not discrete.
Are you arguing that there is a “magical†point in time it becomes “on?â€
Let me ask you this, Zer0: at what point does 0 become 1 since all the fractions in between are infinite? If you count all those fractions, forward, you’ll never get to 1 because you’ll count forever. So, how does something go from 0 to 1?
JQP, think about your computer analogy some more.
If someone didn’t turn the computer on (an input, someone effected the computer, changed it’s state), it wouldn’t be running in the first place.
The software would be just scribbling of letters and numbers if there was no hardware to run it on.
So, B (my finger) acted as an input on A (the computer) and turned it on. B was aware of A and A became aware of B when B pressed on the button.
You should think about things at the fundamental level (points, lines, areas, volumes), then work your way up to more complex things as the mind or computers.
If you can demonstrate to me that you can isolate a triangular area in 2D space that has only inside area and no outside area, then I will consider you a very wise man and take your statements seriously.
Thank you, Shazam. I appreciate your thought provoking questions.
Perhaps computers are a bad analogy because we all know it takes humans to build one. Computers become “on” when humans program them to be.
The mind is a processor of information. But if there is nothing to process, say during a quiet meditaton, it is still “on”. There is no off switch. “on” meaning “aware”.
Zer0, if you can’t tell me when a fraction becomes a one without skipping an infinite amount of more factions, then you can’t tell me when the mind is “on” vs. “off.†I believe it is a continuous activity not discrete. Therefore, at that point my computer analogy ceases to model the real case. After all, I was only comparing software activity as it relates to processing, not the whole computer itself.
The computer going “on” is not the same as the mind going “on” because of the very nature of the continuous cell activity that takes place. There is no counterpart to that in a computer. No analogous model works for every case.
It is the same problem of continuity between 0 and 1.
Computers do not have any primitive functioning cellular units like DNA, RNA, anitbodies, macrophage, etc. Therefore, you cannot use it to compare the “on/off” state of the time to the pushing of a button on a device. Yes, there sort of a division of labor in a computer, but there is nothing in it that compares to cellular activity.
Well, maybe death would be the off switch.
Wow, I just found that posts can be altered. (Must be some race-condition in WordPress code. Nice.) I wrote that last post in a word processor, copied and pasted it. However, “…state of the time…” appeared and I checked, and I didn’t type that! What I typed was “…you cannot use it to compare the “on/off†state of it to the pushing of a button on a device.”
So, writers beware!
JQP, in reality nothing is continuous. You can not demonstrate anything that is continuous (unless you are talking mathematics where you could do things that are not physically possible).
There are no continuous lines, circles, points, events, etc.. that can be demonstrated. They only appear as such from far enough distance. As you get closer the picture changes to a non-straight, curvilinear trajectories, and discrete events and conglomerations. Molecules, atoms, subatomic particles and spaces.
What is a 0 and 1 in reality? Let’s talk about things that can be demonstrated and not some mathemagic that only exists in somebody’s head and on paper.
A 0 becomes a 1 when it goes above the threshold of the sensor that is sensing for a 1.
Your computer would not be working if it was sitting and waiting for a continuous change from 0 to 1.
If it is below 1 it is considered to be 0. As soon as it goes above 1 it is a 1. The threshold is 1.
It is either above or below 1, the ON state.
Even if it goes up to 10, logically it is still a 1.
By counting fractions between 0 and 1 you are doing multiplication by division. You are dividing the 1 into more and more smaller units. So it is not that you will never reach 1 (you are starting at 1 already), it is that you will never reach 0. No matter how much and how small you chop your 1 unit it will always sum up to 1. There is no such thing as 0 (except me, the Zer0 🙂 )
Things will approach 0 but will never be 0.
Go think about that.
Using “on” and “off” as an analogy for “alive” and “dead” only works so far, in my opinion. Actually, it almost seems asymmetrical to me: “off” is similar to “dead,” but “on” is not similar to birth. (Does everything have to have symmetry?)
That is because, again, sorry to repeat myself, of the continuous nature of cellular activity. Each cellular function can be traced back to the activity of another cellular function. In fact, at no point is it spontaneously generated like switching a computer on. (Many would see that as the hand of God. But why does that have to be the answer just because it is a mystery that we cannot understand today?) The problem is that everything living thing must come from another living thing in an endless chain. Thus, the whole debate on “what started the whole chain!” (And if someone says, “God,” then what started God? God does not move us any closer to the answer. In fact, it moves us further away.)
A computer’s “on” state does not correlate with this kind of cellular continuity.
One of the lines of argument developing here (and is typical whenever I get into philosophy) is to admit an unexplainable mystery or paradox and then someone seize it with their own explanation. Someone typically either offers, “you can’t solve the mystery so the best explanation is God,†or, “it’s a mystery so you must be wrong†as if there are no mysteries.
Let’s look at that.
A mystery is something that appears to defy the basic law of causality. But that does not mean it really does. It’s like a card trick. We all see the illusion, it appears to defy causality, and it’s unexplainable by the audience. However, I see the card trick (i.e., mystery problem at hand) as simply something not understood yet but still firmly stick to the laws of causality. That is, I believe it is a trick and not true magic. I feel no need to jump to conclusions right away and also do not believe I can solve it anymore than I can solve partial differential equations at a glance.
But just because it is a mystery is not proof of supernatural work at foot. How many times throughout history has humanity thought that it was and were wrong? Eclipses, shooting stars, and illnesses were all unexplainable mysteries at one time and originally thought to defy any law of causality that we normally observe. But after a lot of work and a lot of time it is discovered that indeed none of those things violated causality. They all wound up to be explainable without violating any of the basic laws we observe everyday. They were not miracles. And it took a lot of time and great minds to solve them.
So, why should this be any different? What the “mind†and consciousness is is a mystery at this point. No one has a good definition of it much less an explanation of how it comes into being. There are great minds that have been working on this for a long time. It would be ridiculously presumptuous of me to think I could solve it (i.e., “when is it on?”) by giving just a few hours (or even years) of thought to it and read a few books on it. That would be like thinking I could fully grasp quantum mechanics after reading a book or two. I’m just not that smart.
So, what the mind is is a scientific mystery yet to be solved. Solving will not be easy. I think saying it is “gravity†or “energy†or other simplistic answers is presumptuous and cannot be taken seriously. Even my own analogy of software is only a very rudimentary comparison on a very specific point. Until computers reproduce, grow their own parts (nano-technology?) and develop their own immune systems, it is not in anyway a complete analogy. I leave it as a mystery.
“That is because, again, sorry to repeat myself, of the continuous nature of cellular activity.”
JQP, you have repeated this to yourself so many times that you have come to believe it as truth. Same is true for many other things that you believe as hard truth. You should doubt your knowledge as much as you doubt others.
“So, why should this be any different? What the “mind†and consciousness is is a mystery at this point. No one has a good definition of it much less an explanation of how it comes into being.”
So, how is this any different for those how believe in god, ghosts, or anything else that you find ridiculous? They can make the same statement.
By now you should know my stance regarding god and ghosts. I don’t have direct awareness of their existence therefore I don’t believe that they exist. But I doubt that I have complete awareness of the whole universe, so I doubt that my understanding and knowledge (and of my fellow men) is complete or accurate. Therefore I doubt the so called scientific database that you take as the truth as much as I doubt everything else.
There has been a television program on lately revealing magicians secrets. I watched a little of it because it was intriguing, but even as I watched I had mixed feelings about learning the “secrets” because I knew while gaining some knowledge I would lose some entertainment.
We love mysteries but our brains seem to have a built-in mechanism and a desperate need to “make sense” of everyhing. So after some observation we begin to make associations and postulate ideas and theories almost as a natural reflex.
My high school art teacher went to the chalk board one day and drew a big round curved line. He turned to us and asked, “What is this?” We all said, “A circle.” He challenged us,”What is the definition of a circle?” “A circle is a continuous line that is equal distant from a center point”. Since he drew this line freehand it wasn’t equally distance from a center point and he purposely stop the line before it connected. “So is it a circle?” “No”. “So why did all of you say it was a circle?” Silence.
The point he was making is that we saw a circle because the mind automatically completed the line and ignored the imperfect equal distance and labeled it a circle. One “secret” in art is that you can merely suggest and the viewer will understand. You can even make something look more accurate by defining it less. Our eyes are used to seeing thing in motion so we are conditioned to fill in the blurs and vagueness. This is especially true in portraiture. Likenesses can be very difficult. Even John Singer Sargent, one of most gifted portrait artist in history explained, “A portrait is a painting that has something wrong with the mouth.” Artists have learned that “suggested” features can help overcome the likeness problem because the viewer completes the likeness… in his mind. Since the viewer fills in the “mystery” the likeness relies on his imagination and memory and makes sense because of his participation.
Mysteries are entertaining but are also very bothersome to our brain. While we enjoy the mystery for awhile eventually we want an answer. Life is the biggest mystery. Very often it doesn’t make much sense. Dyer, Deepak, Robbins offer suggestions and answers. Religion, philosphy, science offer suggestions and answers. If they would present ideas as suggestions and theories I would be very tolerant of all ideas. Explain your reasoning. Show me your evidence. I will consider your case. Just don’t tell me I must believe, I must have “faith”. My faith is in observation.
“Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but not as interesting as observing.”
Actually the quote is:
“Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but not as intersting as looking”.
Miss it by that much.
Reason for typos…. it’s late… I don’t proof read well… I don’t type well. Take your pick.
Spec Tator, very good points.
“Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but not as intersting as lookingâ€.
I would rephrase this as: Thinking may be more interesting than knowing, but not as accurate as direct awareness (looking, observing, interacting, …).
Of course you could look and not see (or see something else), and this is were the awareness comes in.
You need deep and wide awareness in order to truly see things as they are.
At one level of awareness the sketch on the chalk board is a curve and not a circle.
At a level deeper awareness the curve is not a continuous line but a collection of points that are lined up in a curve pattern.
At yet a little deeper awareness level the dots of chalk are ……
You get my point. This is depth of awareness.
One also needs to acquire a width of awareness to see the inter-relationship of all things and events.
One also needs awareness of one’s own thinking process to monitor if the conclusions reached are based on true awareness or biased information.
Awareness is prior to consciousness.
Awareness is a process while consciousness is a state. As long as the awareness is maintained the state of consciousness can exist.
When you are born, you slowly gain awareness of your surroundings and your consciousness expands.
When you die your awareness of physical reality stops and so does your state of consciousness.
I have no awareness of a consciousness that exists without any sensory system for awareness. If someone knows of such a thing I would like to hear about it.
“I have no awareness of a consciousness that exists without any sensory system for awareness.
Your own thinking. That does not come through sensory input, but you are aware of it.
“Awareness is a process while consciousness is a state.”
Based on what? That premise needs some backing.
“Awareness is prior to consciousness.”
What? You’re redefining the words to suit your purposes.
Self-consciousness is credited only with the development of identity (see the self). In an epistemological sense, self-consciousness is a personal understanding of the very core of one’s own identity. It is during periods of self-consciousness that people come the closest to knowing themselves objectively. Jean Paul Sartre describes self-consciousness as being “non-positional”, in that it is not from any location in particular.
Note: no “B” is necessary. That is what that last sentence means.
You’re using the word “consciousness” to mean “understanding.” I don’t buy that, or at least I haven’t come across anything that supports it. Or are you making a distinction between phenomenal consciousness (which means simply experiencing things like “colors,” which requires no understanding and does not precede awareness) vs. access consciousness (which is reasoning)?
Had you said “awareness precedes understanding,” I would have agreed. But I don’t get how consciousness is the same as understanding.
“The instantiation principle is a concept in philosophy that states that if something has a property, then necessarily that “something” must exist. For it not to exist would be a property without an essence, which is impossible.
For example, an apple is red. Here, the apple is the essence and the property is red. The instantiation principle implies that it is meaningless to say that “the apple is red, but the apple doesn’t exist”. The apple must exist for it to be red.
Note that the apple doesn’t have to physically exist – It can simply be a conception in one’s mind. For instance, the statement “Pegasus has wings” has the same structure as the apple analogy, but in this case Pegasus is only an idea in one’s mind. However, the instantiation principle holds: in order for Pegasus to have wings, Pegasus must exist (if only conceptually).
This appears to be a simple and straightforward concept, but it is the basis for many important questions in philosophy. For instance, historically it has been the crucial building block of Descartes’s philosophy, which is summed up in the cogito ergo sum argument, which runs something like this:
I am thinking, therefore I exist
“I am thinking” is taken true. If this is true, then thinking is a property of a thing. One cannot have “thinking” (the property) without a “thinking thing” (essence). Therefore, a thinking thing must exist, and this Descartes holds to be himself.”
Zer0, to be honest with you, I’m not on such secure ground with my arguments that I could not be convinced of your logic. But your explanations tend to be imprecise or engage in certain term hair-splitting and, so, I honestly don’t know what you’re getting at always. They’re kind of “loosy goosey,” if you know what I mean. (Actually, you express sort of a “stream of consciousness,” as they say, and build these little syllogisms on not very well defined premises.) I almost feel like you’re defining terms on the spot or have some misinterpretations derived from their colloquial use rather than their technical use. Or is it that I’ve never understood the precision as well as I thought with some of those terms? (In which case you should then at least define them with some precision.) Case in point: Your use of “awareness” seems to based on its colloquial use and not its technical. When someone is under general anaesthesia we say “he’s unaware” but that use implies external awareness only. Hook up an EEG and you see brain waves (hopefully), though. So there is a level of awareness going on, but it is not external it is internal. When you dream, you are exhibiting an internal awareness, are you not? So, it seems that that “external awareness” definition is what you are using and it is not really what philosophical “awareness” is about. At least, that is my understanding from my studies in philosophy, but feel free to correct me on that if you can back it without all the kind unfamiliar (to me) wording you use.
In any case, that is my greatest difficulty in understanding your points. A common and precise language is simply necessary, at least for me, to discuss some of these concepts.
Awareness as I have always understood in a philosophical context: “Awareness is a relative concept. An animal may be partially aware, may be subconsciously aware, or may be acutely aware of an event. Awareness may be focused on an internal state, such as a visceral feeling, or on external events by way of sensory perception.”
– This is from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness
Note that awareness is not limited to just sensory input. That is how I think you’ve been using it: external only. That is how it is used in everyday language, but not when you get into existential concepts. When you talk about it in the context of “existence” it takes on a more precise meaning.
“Mysteries are entertaining but are also very bothersome to our brain. While we enjoy the mystery for awhile eventually we want an answer. Life is the biggest mystery. Very often it doesn’t make much sense. Dyer, Deepak, Robbins offer suggestions and answers. Religion, philosophy, science offer suggestions and answers. If they would present ideas as suggestions and theories I would be very tolerant of all ideas.”
SpecTator, I agree–but only to a point. The idea that being infinitely open-minded to all possibilities is somehow judged as “operating on a higher level,†by some, is a bit of a conundrum. Usually the “you’re not open-minded” charge is levied at those who aren’t buying what you’re trying to say. But perhaps they have a good reason for not buying it and it is not a question of being “open†but of learned maturity; perhaps there is wisdom in their not buying it. If so, isn’t exercising that wisdom the point of obtaining the wisdom in the first place? To be able to identify and reject bad ideas? And, of course, the irony in the “you’re not being open minded” charge is that the one stating this is not being open to the rejection from the other!
So, the whole “open minded” argument doesn’t carry much weight with me as it did in my youth. I’ve learned that most ideas that strike one as ridiculous means they usually are. (Not always, but usually.) Closing the doors to the things you learn in life that are either wrong (morally or otherwise) or extraordinary, and most likely baseless, is really what it means to grow and learn. Staying in an endless state of being open to anything just means you’ve never gone anywhere.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on open mindedness.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, more often than not the “you’re not open-minded” charge is really meant as a subtle put down rather than a truly accurate statement. It is a knee-jerk reaction to your rejection. So, they’re basically telling you that you’re not giving their idea a chance and that if you were just “open” to it then you’d see the obvious correctness of their stance. Those who use it are really exercising a little bit of self-righteousness. I have long gotten over charging others as “close minded” simply because they don’t accept what I’m saying. (It was practically a mantra in the sixties to charge anyone of the “establishment” as close minded. But it in itself was an intolerant remark.) Rather, I look for the logic in their refutation now.
JQP, in order for us to speak a common language you must read Synergetics by Buckminster Fuller. I have adopted his terminology which may or may not be different from what you are familiar with.
But I don’t think it makes that much difference if the concepts are well understood.
I have to go now. Have a good weekend. We will continue.
Zero
“Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but not as interesting as looking.”
“Looking” will start the wheels turning and the brain will get busy firing synapses and associations will grow a connection or two, so yes awareness will shift into gear immediately, but our own personal experiences and knowledge will color that awareness even when we are ready and willing to learn anew. We can only begin from where we are so our knowledge and our experience will dictate where we start. Our intelligence and attention may take us to new levels and new understandings, but some biases undoubtably tag along for quite some time. There are some tricks to trip them up however. Does perception have limits? Not as far as we can… see. There is always awareness (aka knowledge?) to be acquired. Chalk lines are really chalk dots. Chalk dots are a just collect of atoms. Atoms are made up of… well you get the point(s).
Georgia O’Keefe was once asked why she paint her flowers so big. She replied, “People never really look at flowers, I wanted them to really look at them.”
In a drawing class the teacher divide us up into two groups. She gave us a line drawing of a man sitting in a chair to copy. One group had to view the drawing upside down, the other right-side up. When we were finished we compared them to see which group reproduced the drawing with the most accuracy. Because it was not as easily recognizable, the students who had to view the drawing upside down had to rely more on “seeing” relationships of lines and shapes while the students who had the drawing right-side up could allow their “prejudices” of what a man sitting on a chair looked like influence their drawing and therefore not rely as much on what they actually were seeing. The students who drew from the upside down picture were invariably more accurate. We didn’t need a drawing theory. We didn’t need years of education at an art institution. We just had to learn to leave our thinking for awhile… and really look. You can’t abandon thinking very often but sometimes just looking can be the cure. A good lesson.
A young John Singer Sargent applied for a class with the artist Carolos-Duran. The teacher studied the young man’s portfolio and was very impressed. Mr Duran accepted Sargent as a student but warned him, “You have much to unlearn.”
Absolute truth may be unattainable but if you want to get close, maybe all you need to do is take a good hard look.
While I think, SpecTator, you laid out that point well, I don’t think equating “truth” (that which stands up to scrutiny) is the same as subjective artistic beauty. Actually, the latter is not really truth but merely accepted opinion. (Your teacher was kind of abusing the word.)
Can you say that impressionism is more “truthful” than representation? Or postmodern? Or abstract? I don’t think you can compare what is generally accepted as beautiful with objective truth.
“Just looking” for objective truth gets you a flat earth, stars that seem close, and the myriad of other misperceptions that can only be disspelled through analysis and understanding. (In fact, most truths are too complicated for most to undertand requires years of education.) And the big truth (i.e., the meaning of life), where everyone’s looking quite a bit, yields no consensus. So it doesn’t appear that superficial observation gets any closer to that either.
And, by the way, I know a typical comeback to this is that Keats quote, “Truth is beauty, beauty truth.” But give that a moment of consideration. Does that mean there is no truth in ugliness? And since there is no universal consensus on what is beautiful or ugly does that then mean there is no objective truth, only that which one considers beautiful? And if there’s no objective truth then we all make up whatever we like and call it truth?? After all, there would be no way to refute it.
So, in the end, using the logic of a poet, “truth” has no meaning. Is that really something that is workable?
God is not a jealous vengeful man judging and punishing people.
God is an event
We see god everywhere we look
God is time and space and LOVE
by the way jqp is a F*CKING moron and its a waste of time to talk with him cuz he talks in circles just like a crazy woman oh yeah and he rates books that he hasnt even read. But its ok im not perfect either as you can see i still make comments as if comming from a 4 year old
Hi JQP
I don’t know the precise point the person I quoted intended but I think that “looking” probably meant more than images bouncing off the retina and sending impulses to the brain. My guess would be that he equated “looking” more to learning by observation. I know mine was. Drawing requires analyzing, measuring and comparing. You’re still using your brain, it’s just not rocket science. I admit to downplaying the “thinking” part of this process. My intention was more to the point of seeing what is really there as opposed to what we “think” it should look like. My bad.
Observation prompts couriosity, questions and perhaps even a scientific hypothesis or two. Johannes Kelper first had to observe the movements of the planets before he could calculate the laws of planetary motion. He was very much the observer.
In his book Astronomia Pars Optica, for which he earned the title of founder of modern optics he was the:
First to investigate the formation of pictures with a pin hole camera;
First to explain the process of vision by refraction within the eye;
First to formulate eyeglass designing for nearsightedness and farsightedness;
First to explain the use of both eyes for depth perception.
Very visual guy.
Erotosthenes knew the earth wasn’t flat by the 3rd century B.C. using two sticks and observing two shadows in two locations at the same time (different days of course) and doing a little math. His estimate of the earth circumfrence was pretty damn close considering his intruments. It’s not his fault others “didn’t see”.
Of course “just looking” is simplistic and your point is well taken but unless your eyes are no longer wired to your brain information is always getting in. However, you can get in a “zone”, you can disengage your thinking and perform quite sucessfully, depending on the activity of course. This is usually achieved by repetitive practice and training.(“Turn off the computer Luke”.) I wouldn’t want my surgeon, however, to operate in “the zone”. There are some severe limitations.
Meditation is all about quieting the mind, not thinking to achieve a relaxed state but another purpose is to let new creative ideas and thoughts in. American Gothic artist Grant Wood said he got his best ideas while milking a cow. (You don’t need to pay much attention when your milking. I get my good ideas while mowing the lawn.)
I did mentioned truth. Foolish of me.
Emily Dickinson died for beauty and the dead guy next to her died for truth. She also said “they are the same”. So she and Keats are the same page but I never said anything about beauty! Mentioning truth was dumb enough.
The truth I was refering to would be like… gravity. I don’t know the absolute truth about gravity, but I am convinced it’s real and that the explanation of it is probably close to the truth. At least I can observe things being attracted to the ground.
That’ all I have to say about that.
One more thing.
I don’t equate “tolerance” with “open-mindedness”. I never knew anyone over the age of twelve that was still open-minded. I’m a little over twelve.
My belief is that the truth is a truth until you organize it, and then becomes a lie. I don’t think that Jesus was teaching Christianity, Jesus was teaching kindness, love, concern, and peace. What I tell people is don’t be Christian, be Christ like. Don’t be Buddhist, be Buddha like. Dr. Wayne Dyer
“My guess would be that he equated “looking†more to learning by observation.”
I see. Perhaps I was hasty in my response. But I still think you’re suggesting a right-minded analysis; a subconscious digesting. There is something to be said for that. I don’t deny that that approach can indeed give some great insights. I’m a little sensitive to that claim, however, because so many new age authors in the last 10 or so years have exaggerated its importance. Partly the reason they do this (not entirely, but partly) is that their claims cannot be backed with straightforward logic and they don’t want to give them up. In fact, that is a common misunderstanding of Einstein. Yes, imagination world start his process, but in the end it was logic and math that either validated or invalidated that imaginative thought. So, using the right-mind for new ideas is fine. However, going so far as to imply that that is the end of it, simply imagining it is enough, is in error. Truth is not truth until tested.
â€However, you can get in a “zoneâ€, you can disengage your thinking and perform quite sucessfully, depending on the activity of course.â€
We’re in complete agreement. But I would say the “zone†does not have to be a relaxed state of mind.
 not thinking to achieve a relaxed state but another purpose is to let new creative ideas and thoughts in.â€
I once believed this. In fact, I once was a licensed hypnotist. (Hey, I was young!) But over time I realized it really never did anything its supporters claimed. In fact, I never once had a single creative idea in music or my profession (computer science) during these extremely relaxed moments. All my best ideas (I hold a few patents in software) came from rigorous grind and lots of caffeine. That has always been a winning strategy for me. I’m one of those with a lot of energy and constantly multitasking. Contrary to many claims, that is when I am not stressed. Much research has now gone back on the idea that type-A personalities are more likely to risk a heart attack or die early. Statistically type-A’s actually tend to liver longer and with fewer illnesses. You see examples of this. Look at H. Ross Perot! He’s older than Ram Dass for instance. Ram’s in a wheelchair after practicing a relaxed lifestyle and Ross is still going strong. (I know Perot, so I can personally vogue for that.) Even Andrew Weil says in his latest book that being in a “frustrated state of mind†adds to your longevity and is shown to thwart Alzheimer’s. Now I’m not suggesting being this for everyone or never relaxing, but I have come to believe that the relaxed state and creatively is overblown by new age authors. Most great achievements come during the course of heavy activity, not meditation. If it were true, then why is Tibet not the idea capital of the world?
Another thought on meditation, SpecTator: all the great achievers throughout history, how many practiced meditation? And out of all the mediators we have in recent times, how many wind up making big contributions in math, or philosophy, or technology, or inventions, or even in just solving global problems? Who has come up with the most creative ideas over time? Those who meditated?
I can’t think of a single large contribution to any discipline that came from the meditating crowd. But perhaps I just don’t know about one. Do you?
Except Jesus didn’t write anything down. So it is hard to say what he was teaching exactly because it is all through the interpretation of some men highly susceptible to superstition.
So why is it that those who spend the most time meditating and connecting to God seem to never make any great contributions to humanity other than “we should all get along?” (Which even stoners Bill and Ted said with more depth: “Be excellent to each other.”) Why isn’t it that Dyer et al are not producing great creative solutions to math, physics, dilopmatic efforts, or become great artists? For all their meditating their best contributions to society are infomercials and DVDs that say nothing more than “the power is within you” or “all you need is love.” If that is the bar for “genius” it is set so low anyone can step over it.
Meditation does not seem to have a great track record for producing great contributions. Where exactly is all this great creativity that it is supposed to produce?
Also, India as a culture practiced mediation for over a thousand years. Yet, remained one of the poorest nations on earth; unable to feed their inhabitants. Their recent rise out of abject poverty was not a turn to more meditation for creative solutions, but a massive in increase in the investment in education (a very left-minded solution); especially computer science. That move did more to feed its citizens in 10 years than meditation did in a thousand.
If the claims about meditation (TM) were simply that relaxation helps focus, that would make sense. That is the same as saying when you have a good night’s sleep you focus better. No argument. But the claims are so much more exaggerated. It is supposed to be a “connection to God†through which “divine energy flows through you.†TM is claimed to be effective at curing cancer (yet it didn’t help Andy Kauffman at all). And, the claim suggested here, is TM allows creative ideas to flow.
If these claims are true, then by all accounts countries where meditation is regularly practiced isn’t it reasonable to expect that they would also come up with some of the best and creative solutions to big problems like how to feed their people? Or even larger scale problems like how to end nuclear proliferation? (Yet, India joined the nuclear group.) Not to mention that speedy recoveries from illnesses would be statistically higher? Yet, those countries that practice meditation as an ingrained part of culture suffer some the worst conditions of all. And in the end they turn to the same old left-minded solutions to lift them out, and which it does. Nothing new, creative or ingenious. How is that? Am I not asking a valid question?
“…he rates books that he hasnt even read.”
When did I do that?
MetallicaJoe, why do you feel a need to curse?
And, MetallicaJoe, how is it that you know what God is and that he is not judgmental? Is that just your opinion?
“The truth I was refering to would be like… gravity. I don’t know the absolute truth about gravity, but I am convinced it’s real and that the explanation of it is probably close to the truth. At least I can observe things being attracted to the ground.”
SpecTator, if you want a different perspective on gravity you should read the book The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon. JQP won’t read it because he already knows everything or knows people who know everything and takes their advice on what he should read or not.
You should also read Synergetics by Buckminster Fuller if you can.
“We see god everywhere we look
God is time and space and LOVE
by the way jqp is a F*CKING moron”
Ah, yes, you can see the divine love flowing through you right there. God does’t judge, but it’s okay for you to do so. I see.
“. JQP won’t read it because he already knows everything or knows people who know everything…”
Ouch! You twisted that for your own purposes. I said I do not have a sufficent background in physics. It’s a lack of training to make a proper conclusion. And so I rely on those with training. Which you do for a myriad of things every day of your life. You cannot be trained in everything.
Zer0, why is it that you think that you have a strong enough grasp of physics to draw such extraordinary conclusions? If you do, then you should be able to explain to me any one of the papers published on this site.
And if you want, Zer0, we can talk computer science. Then I can contribute at a much greater level.
Actually, Zer0, I don’t even see why you’re pushing that idea here. How is it even relevant?
I have to agree with JQP regarding meditation.
Some of the most creative ideas that I have had came when I was under pressure to deliver a solution. I was not stressing myself but I put an expectation on myself with confidence that I will deliver. Then suddenly an idea would come as if it was squeezed out of my brain. I wouldn’t say I was in a relaxed state but I was calm and not worried that I would fail.
Zer0, it doesn’t seem like one person wanted to engage you on your topic even though you’ve brought it before. When you posted that video, I didn’t any comments on it. Why single me out for the lack of interest?
“Ouch! You twisted that for your own purposes. I said I do not have a sufficent background in physics. It’s a lack of training to make a proper conclusion. And so I rely on those with training. Which you do for a myriad of things every day of your life. You cannot be trained in everything.”
Maybe I did 🙂
You shouldn’t let your lack of training stop you from reading a book. You should think of reading this book as part of your training.
I am not asking you to take this book as the truth. It is just a very strong example of looking at the same phenomenon from a completely different direction and thinking outside the box.
Don’t worry it’s just a book, it will not possess you and suck out all the data from your brain that you safeguard so hard. The worst it will do is take a few hours that you would otherwise waste on this blog 🙂 (just kidding, I value your posts and will miss them when you are gone for a while)
You shouldn’t dismiss ideas because they don’t fit your database. I single sentence in this book (or any other source that you would otherwise dismiss) could trigger another idea in your mind and maybe you would become the guy who comes up with the Final Theory of everything. You shouldn’t only go after the data in the source but also the possible triggers that could turn on the “Lamp”. Eureka!!!
Actually, if you’re looking for some academic conversation, I’m working with someone on optimizing the Bellman-Ford algorithm. Now, I’m not throwing that out to make any kind of impression (in fact, Bellman-Ford is not really much of a high-level computer science topic), but only a topic on which I have sufficient training and am qualified to make conclusions about. If you don’t have a CS background, that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect you to be able discuss it at any depth. And, equally, you can find a plethora of topics that you can talk strongly about that I would probably have nothing more than a superficial understanding of.
So, what is the point? Where are you going with this gravity thing? It’s not like it can work like a book club with everyone’s opinion. It is a complicated topic that requires a lot of training to really grasp. (If you read layman’s book on QM, do you really understand QM? Can you start working the equations? I don’t think so.) If I say, “wow, that seems plausible,” since I don’t have much of a physics background, what good is my validation? And if I say, “I don’t think it is plausible,” does that have any more meaning? The only way my opinion can matter is if I’m properly trained. The idea that laymen can tackle complicated in-depth ideas and make a judgment after one reading is laughable at best. I suffer no such illusions. I have no idea why that idea rubs you the wrong way.
And, finally, if you have sufficient understanding the topic, Zer0, then you should be able to articulate it well without twisting terminology or even going into jargon. (That is the true test of understanding, mind you.) And if you find trouble with articulating an idea, perhaps it is because you don’t really have it crystallized in your mind.
”
You shouldn’t let your lack of training stop you from reading a book. You should think of reading this book as part of your training.”
My goodness, you think that is a good way to get trained? Okay, I’ll also subscribe to the home surgical training course. Want me for your doctor?
No, reading vanity books is a way to get some knowledge, but that is nowhere near the same thing as true educational training. Do you know partial differential equations (PDEs)? If not, go get a book and let’s talk about them! No, you need a few years of study.
You’re confusing superficial knowledge with true education. There is such a thing as a qualified opinion vs. just an opinion. I have no opinion on your topic other than I ask where is the support that has a widely accepted reputation? Which you should ask for with any complicated technical endeavor. Going off one person’s view is fraught with peril. A concensus of those with solid reputations is a much sounder route, don’t you think?
What you really want is the opinion of DB or someone within his network (there are all kinds links to his ilk off his main blog, so they’re easy to contact). They have the expertise to give you a qualified opinion. I bet this guy would not only do it but probably start off with a bias in your favor: http://carlbrannen.wordpress.com/
“…reading this book as part of your training.â€
And what makes you think I want to spend my time training on “is gravity is consciousness” or whatever it is you’re trying sell? I have enough academic pursuits to keep me busy.
MetallicaJoe, I accept your criticism on my opinions. After all, when you openly put your opinion out there it will be criticized. And I have also openly said people should criticize my opinions as, quoting myself, I do not have a corner on the market of understanding.
However, what are your refutations? So far, you’ve only made 2 points: You know that God is “love,” and you believe in meditation. (I never said God is judgmental, by the way. And since I do not believe in God, asking me what I think he be is a laughable question. Let me turn that back: if you believed in pink elephants, would you think they’re judgmental? It’s a ludicrous question. The fact that you asked it: what does that say about you?)
But feel free to put out something with a little more depth than “God is love!” or “you’re a f___king moron!”
Also, it is my experience that those who swear a lot (I have nothing against it, but they are grammatically meaningless intensities, so not everything has to be intensified; sometimes, yes) are just lacking the right words. Words are a direct reflection of your thinking. If your thinking is clear and precise, so are your words. If you have a need to fill in your phrases with meaningless intensities, perhaps your thoughts are incomplete. I don’t know. If you have complete thoughts, then by all means put them out there. I did. And if you don’t agree with mine, can you fault me for at least stating them?
Hey, Zer0, you don’t also go by the name “rocket art” in physicsforums, do you?
No, I don’t. This is the only place I post. I don’t have the time. Why?
No problem. Just someone there was making some of the same points you did and I just wondered if it was you. That’s all.
MetallicaJoe, here’s a point-by-point breakdown of your comments to see if I understand where you’re coming from. (Out of all the posts, you more often than anyone come across with this personal vehemence that I’m not really getting. That is, are you mad because I think Wayne Dyer is ripping people off? You’re defending someone who’s made millions, so why do you think he needs your defense? Or are you just a pissed off person in general? Cynicism I get, but you embrace these ideas of universal love and in the same breath shout these obscenities. I’m not really clear on what gets to you other than you simply disagree, which always raises a little ire in someone. But you show a lot more emotion than a little indignant ire.)
â€i believe that until you are mature enough and ready, you will not appreciate listening to dr. dyer nor will be interested.â€
So, your contention is that those who follow and believe Wayne Dyer have achieved a certain level of “maturity.†Isn’t that really a veiled put down and not a fact? I mean, can you really back that with any line of reasoning? For example: 2 groups. One that follows Dyer, one that doesn’t. Is the latter likely to be more statistically “mature†than the former? I believe it is safe to assume there are a quite number of very “mature†(you should define that, by the way—educational maturity? Spiritual maturity? Chronological maturity?) people who do not follow or believe anything Dyer says. In fact, I will bet you money Dyer would even agree. I don’t think he ever said “only the mature follow me!â€
But I think you’re real point is say those who do not agree with are somehow inexperienced—thus, a put down.
â€But until then attacking at dyer with words made up…â€
I can assure you I did not make up any words. Ask me and I will be more than happy to define any that I have used. I try to be careful with my phrasing (typos aside). If I wasn’t, then point it out.
â€Im not trying to make fun of you jqp,â€
Really? The thinly veiled comment that attacking Dyer was immature is not making fun?
â€i do like to see a different viewpoint every once in a while but it would be nice if they were just a bit more logical.â€
When exactly did you exhibit that here? Where did you show tolerance towards opposing viewpoints? In fact, you seem to only have 2 modes of operation: enraged or outraged.
I tried to be logical. Where wasn’t I? I do express a lot of opinions, but I identify them as opinions. But each one I attempt to back with a line of reasoning. Where did I fail to do that?
â€I would just like to confirm with myself whether you are repub or democrat,..â€
Confirm with yourself? You’re asking yourself? More to the point, how did my politics fit into your argument? That is, what does politics have to do with supporting or not supporting Wayne Dyer? There might be something to the fact that most conservatives don’t care for new age spiritualism, but is that what you meant? Because I don’t fit that mold. If I were a Republican that somehow that changes the argument? (I bet if I told you I were a Republican you’d shout how f___ked I was! Once again, showing how you “like to hear other points of view.â€)
If you had said that politics creates a bias, then I might agree. But you did not state the significance of your question.
â€This pisses me off i typed a crap load of stuff and it all got deleted so now i have to type it all again..â€
You have to admit, you do seem to exhibit a short fuse. I would hate to run into you on the freeway.
â€JQP, LOL, i dont even know where to start with you. Question do you read my posts through or just read every other word? LOL j/k But seriously what is your definition of freewill?
Why do you question our importance to know if we have a higher purpose..â€
I read your posts very carefully. I’m not sure how you concluded that. Again, you cite no specifics, just shout out a generalization.
1, My definition of freewill is that decisions are not predetermined. How is that funny or incongruent with standard usage?
2, Why should it not be questioned? What higher purpose is there than simply serving your fellow citizen (which you are implying)?
â€A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. “
If you’re truly reading his material, he is claiming those are results of aligning yourself with a higher purpose, not that they are the higher purposes. He says the end result is “to realize god.†Which he means, to see god in yourself. He backs this with his claim, “the only problem we have is believing we’re separate from God.†So, he does not say “fulfillment, growth, and creativity†are higher purposes, he’s saying they’re artifacts from coming closer to god.
Don’t you think such a bold claim as to require proof? Is it good enough for you that he just says it?
â€John – i know you probably already have a picture of what god should be like which is totally fucked.â€
Wow. Can you honestly read that back and not think the author harbors some deep issues about disagreement?
 um what was your question, hmm oh yeah why would you want to do something like that? Oh yeah i forgot, being able to talk with god, woopdee doo why? what would be the importance if you cant prove it? right?â€
Incoherent drivel to me. But anything regarding talking to God, all I’ve asked is if someone makes such an extraordinary claim then there is a burden of proof on them. That is a big claim, and simply by claiming it requires they back it. To look at it another way: “I just saw a flying monster. Prove I didn’t?†See the logic? I’m making an extraordinary claim and asking others to prove I didn’t makes no sense. I’m the one claiming something, I’m the one who should back it.
â€sorry jqp i didnt mean to make it sound like you believed in god i meant if god really did exist how would you picture him.â€
That question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There’s no way to even approach.
You don’t believe in flying pigs, but if you did how would you picture their behavior?
â€Like i said JQP your idea of what god would be like if he exists is FUCKED!!!â€
Back to the road rage manners. Why do you think this is an effective form of communication? So, you’re extremely angry because you think I may have an image of a god I don’t believe in that differs from yours? You must be angry a lot. But that begs the question: do you really follow anything your beloved Dyer says? He speaks incessantly against anger. You, yourself, extol the virtues of universal love, and then exhibit kind of hatred all at the same time.
â€God would be nothing like the jealous punishing tyrant that you picture it would be so of course believing in a bullshit angry punishing god just makes things more worse than not believing in god at all.â€
I never made a claim about god’s behavior one way or the other. What I said in this context: that if the biblical god was true (which describes a despotic vengeful god), why would one worship it? I think it’s a valid question: if god is described as worse than Hitler, why would he deserve worship? What is wrong with that question? How does it not show a sense of reason and logic?
 everything in the universe is made of energy and everything is connected in that way and i believe that this is what god is.â€
I guess you feel no need to back this with any sort of reasoning. You making a big claim about the laws of physics. (Can you even define “energy?â€) Just saying it is good enough for you, I guess.
â€But you go ahead just sit there with your thumb in your ass and call it all bullshit so you never have to think about it again cuz we all now thats the more easier way to go, right?â€
And more road rage. Is not believing in god when most of the world does the easy way out? When every coin in the U.S. says “in God we trust?†When a politician can only get elected if he’s not only religious but from the right religion? Is thinking and questioning the claims of Wayne Dyer easier than just buying into them wholesale as you seem to have done? I think you took the easy way out.
â€You sarcasticly say that the meditations are doing me alot of good? I dont recall saying that i do the meditations .. oh yeah cuz i didnt. I love it when people assume stuff.â€
True, but you did ask me to try it and even argued (vehemently) in support of it. Was it an unreasonable assumption? Try it for 90 days, you said. (Manifestation requires meditation. I read the book when it came out.)
â€And by the way christianity has nothing to do with an all loving god and neither do any of the organized religions.â€
Actually, Andrew, who makes no bones about how deeply Christian he is, shows us a more tolerant and balanced manner than you do by a long shot. But you’re wrong. There are Christians like Andrew who in fact do show that traditional Christianity can also hold the idea of an “all loving god.†In some ways I could agree with you, but that statement is so generalized that I can’t. The organization of Christianity is hardly a unified entity, so you have to be specific.
â€I would like to hope that we would all agree that the angry punishing god we see in the bible and in other religion books could not exist…â€
So, everyone should follow you? You’re the answer man on what God is or isn’t? You pick an alias reminiscent of a teenager who can’t let go of his heavy metal good times and you want us to take your lead on the right world view?
â€LOL i liked it when you brought up the point that JQP gave a negative review on a book that he hasnt read yet…â€
I did not give it a “review.†Hardly. I simply pointed out there were no reputable physicists supporting it (and I did check up on that) and that it was likely another crackpot claim. Don’t believe me? You’re on a blog connected to a number of physicists. Ask them. (They post their email addresses.) So, this is just another childish taunt on your part because being skeptical of an extraordinary claim is not unreasonable at all–especially when no one qualified seems to agree with the claim.
â€Even if i had an idea of what was in it the book, i would not have the position to make an educated review.â€
More incoherent gibberish. You show little sign of being educated at all.
â€That just makes me wonder whether any of the other negative reviews written were just based upon what others reviews gave and not from reading the book.â€
You are aware of the difference between an educated guess and just a guess, right?
â€And jqp, im losing interest with arguing with you cuz the way you run in circles i could never win with a person of your stubborness and closemindedness.â€
Where did you show open mindedness? Boy, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Were you open to anything I said? Or is your definition of “open minded†reserved for just those who agree with you? (You just made my point about open mindedness: people use it not logically, but as a put down.)
â€Now this is your turn where you say how you are not closeminded and say that dyer is a fake.â€
You didn’t read my posts. I am close minded. But I think that is what learning is about. Are you open minded to racism? Bigotry? Hatred? War? You’ve indicated that you are not. Why? Because you’ve learned they are immoral and are no longer open minded towards them. (There was a time you were because you didn’t know what they meant, yet.) That’s what it means to learn that an idea is incorrect or immoral. The more things you learn are either immoral or incorrect, or ridiculous (like the tooth fairy), the more doors you have closed your mind to. What is wrong with that? “Open mindedness†is a term used by those who have a hard time getting others to agree with them on a logical basis.
â€Oh and by the way Mr. John Q Public – You should try not to use such big words that most people dont understand the definition to i noticed you do this alot – congrats on your wide range of vocabulary but it doesnt help to get your full meaning across to the average joe..â€
I used words I thought were appropriate. If you do not understand them, why blame me? And, here, you are admitting to a certain lack of education. So, should I lower my ability to articulate just to accommodate you? If someone knows how to express themselves well, then don’t you think they should? And, in any case, you’ll see I did try to accommodate you. Some topics just require polysyllabic words, and most people here seem to get them (and even use them) with no problem. You’re the only one who complained.
â€The answer is simple – god would not destroy gays thats just ridiculous and ill have to agree with jqp when he says he would never worship a vengeful god.â€
What do you know, we have agreement and you’re not calling me an asshole or some other term of endearment.
â€WE ARE ALL ONE – we are all connected – there is an energy of the whole that runs through everything which i call god – there are low energys which make up things that we can see and touch and there are high energys like thoughts that are non local meaning they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time.â€
Why do you think that needs no backing? It is a very big claim. You are literally making statements about the laws of physics. Is it just enough for you to say this? You do not think this needs any backing whatsoever?
â€We kill people for killing people.â€
That doesn’t make sense. I think you’re trying say we kill because we like it. But you would have to qualify that because a large amount of killing goes on because someone thinks it is necessary. For some, yes they like it. But by and large I think that is a tough position to support. But I am open to it. How would you back this beyond just you thinking it?
â€I think maybe we all need to try and look at the root of the problem which is why we act the way we do and what can we do to change it for the better.â€
I would agree. You personally could start by not cursing at me and showing a little tolerance for disagreement.
â€In a smarter more experienced world, we would not be killing each other at all, instead we would be sharing everything throughout.â€
That’s a little naive. A good thought, though. I suggest you read up on philosophy and the idea of Utopia. It’s not as easy as it sounds. Lots of philosophers have written about it. (This I’ve studied a lot. I will engage you in philosophy on any level you want.)
†Its like the united states going into iraq and trying to kill a religion with guns.â€
I partially agree with this. I think only some want to eliminate Islam (and that would make them intolerant bigots), but others want to democratize the Mideast in some fantasy that it could cure its ills. Again, you throw out just one big generalization.
â€Now religions that teach of a vengeful punishing god are not helping this problem one bit. Religions, have for thousands of years, have been dragging at our behavior growth. “
Agreed.
â€We are like monkeys with cellphones.â€
Where do you come up with analogies? What does that even mean??
â€But please tell me what YOU think.â€
And the road rage passes for a while.
 they have a show called how to catch a predator.â€
Odd detour. It would have been better if you showed it relevance to the topic. Such as showing how that, possibly, American cultural values are not always steeped in true morality. Or something like that.
 by the way jqp is a F*CKING moron and its a waste of time to talk with him cuz he talks in circles just like a crazy woman..â€
Road rage back on! Where did I talk in circles? You make a charge against my posts, and then don’t even back it. Be specific. (And are you even serious?)
JQP yeah you definetely have way too much time on your hands for addressing as much as you did im surprised i even took the time to read it all but when i was done i was kinda glad i did. You are right on how i curse to much and do not back up a lot of what i say and i will try and correct that. But you are assuming that just because i agree with alot of what dyer says that im just like him and obviously im nowhere near his spiritual level however i do feel he has gave me a much bigger perspective than i once had. I am not wayne dyer. I smoke cigarettes, I drink very occasionaly, I dont have alot of money, I dont exercise as much as i should, I get sick sometimes, Im not disciplined enough to meditate as i think i should, and worst of all ive been addicted to oxycontin for four years with the exception of last year beginning jan 2007 to august of 2007 and my dumbass relasped and back to this horrible addiction again. My point is i have a long way to go to be like wayne dyer claims he is. On a different note i dont know what your definition of energy is but i believe there is an energy that connects everything in this universe in some way or another. We can not see this energy with the naked eye but i think that even you can agree with me on this part. But the hazy part is to believe that this energy as a whole has a consiousness such as thoughts and feelings. Now for some reason i believe that there is. Im afraid i cannot back that up. Now i am a person that deeply disagrees with religion. Most religions have angry vengeful punishing gods that solve there problems with violence. Now my logic tells me that people who believe in a god that solves problems with violence are going to do the exact same thing and we see it everywhere in society. I once said in this blog we are killing people for killing people and you were questioning the meaning. What i was refering to is capital punishment. I dont believe that killing people because they killed someone is the solution but it is trying to solve the problem with violence. If it was the solution then would we still be killing people for killing people? It just doesnt make sense to me i think somehow we need to find the source of the problem and go from there. My point being that religion is very bad for us and is dramatically holding us back spiritually. You were questioning my quote – we are like monkeys with cellphones. Basically over the years our technology has been skyrocketing while our religions our holding our behavior as a society back. It seems to me if we did not have religion then our civilization would be much more peaceful and caring. However the religious would disagree and say that we would have chaos without religion. Well i think thats crap. I think humans are naturally GOOD i think we have to be unnatural to act in a way that is not good in other words violent. However it is normal that we do act in a violent manner but i do not believe it is our natural self. And again i cannot back that up it is just how i feel. Going to bed – to be continued.
So again JQP and others i do apoligize and also i have a dial up internet connection and everytime i come to this site it takes about 5 mins for the whole page to pop up could someone please let me know if there is another site i can use that does not include every passage on this topic so it will be faster for me? It would be very helpful.
One reason I’ve enjoyed this blog is that even though the exchange of ideas and beliefs does get intense there has been very little trash talking and even less cursing. I hope the Jerry Springer culture does not become a part of these discussions.
JQP
I am not a meditator. Boring.
I am a spectator. More interesting.
Milking cows and mowing lawns is activity, they are just low level activity that don’t require much paying attention. I have noticed from my own experience that a mundane physical activity not only allows the mind to wander but helps stimulate the creative process. The creative process still relies on knowledge and intelligence… and a lot of effort. So you gather information and do the sweating, but to be creative you have to “play” a little. Edgar Degas said an artist must be as “clever as a criminal”. Optical effects and color theory for painting is pretty left brain stuff, not to mention the all chemistry involved. Great achievements require a great deal of left brain “bucket work” but imgination still rules.
My emphasis on observation is mostly habit. The point or the “bigger picture” I was making was that we are indoctrinated from birth by our parents, our educators, our society… Madison Avenue… to see very much of the world through thier eyes. We are a product of our enviroment. We assimulate culture and knowledge but not without some accompanying biases and predjudices that, when we look closer, may no longer make sense. Maybe there was a Flat Earth Society but membership has “fallen off” dramatically lately. The ability to stand on the opposite points on a sphere (earth) and not fall off is illogical nonsense, until the right brain imagine a “force” and the left brain worked out the details and came up with the concept of gravity. Synergy in motion. Do you think the theory of gravity was immediately embraced by the viewing public, or do you think that personal observations, contemplation, “thinking” and scientific evidence finally conviced even the lamest layman? I don’t mean to exaggerate observation but it doesn’t require a lot of critical thinking to see that the obvious is often overlooked simply because of “belief” and “faith”. In other words, I’m pretty much in agreement with you… except I come from a more right brain viewpoint.
You left brain bully!
“What it comes down to is the modern society discriminates against the right hemisphere.”
Roger Sperry
Noble Prize winner on research of hemisphrecity.
â€You left brain bully!â€
Ha! LOL! Sorry. I don’t mean to bully. I agree with your points and I’m really only downplaying imagination mostly because those with a spiritual inclination play it up so much. Imagination I believe is only a starting ground and in itself does not lead to truth often, which should be obvious to anyone. Anyone in a technical field knows during critical troubleshooting or product creation how wild the imagination can run and more often than not it produces ideas that your realize later they are just wrong after you put them to use. You have to go through a lot of bad ideas to find that one good one. I cannot think of an endeavor or musical composition that came anywhere near right the first time for me. Actually, my personal best compositions come after grinding on them in a multitude of ways over really long periods of time.
For example, it’s easy to come up with a hook or melody that sticks. I can do that at any sitting within just a few minutes. That is usually the starting point and does come purely from imagination. But the phrasing, bridge (especially!), variations, which typically comprise more than 80% of a whole composition, are really “design patterns†off the main theme. In order to make them interesting you have to know how scales and chords relate or else you end up with the same imaginative idea over and over again with no interesting variation. So, the imaginative part many times is the easiest part for the musician (not always and that changes from individual to individual, so I shouldn’t generalize it too much, but I’ve heard many say this before), but developing it into a full song is a lot of work and is what really separates the amateurs from the pros. (Lots of people come up with cute little songs, but try and make it into a full composition!) In the end, the audience only catches the theme and hook and it all seems so “inspired.†That is because that cannot appreciate the subtle variations going on unless they know how to listen. And the new age crowd just grabs that little 20% part (because it is the most accessible and sits at the center of the “beautyâ€), runs with it and blows its significance way out of proportion. Even on a broader scale they will tend to do that. That is, most musicians, singers, artists (pick any discipline here) who are professional work really hard at what they do even with a lot of talent.
Then there are few so gifted (e.g. some 9 year old prodigy comes along and blows everyone away; or like you cite, Degas) that it’s just the reverse for them: all imagination and little work. New age focuses more on them yet fewer are like them or will ever be like them. The emphasis is misguided. Those gifted few are not representative and should not be the model for everyone else because hard as you may try you just won’t play at that level. (While it can “inspire,†trying to do it the same way a very talented person does it is a recipe for frustration.) I could do things as a child on the piano that my piano teachers could never do. I many times told myself “I could teach anyone do this, it’s not that hard!†and found over time I could not. However I learned to do fast runs most others simply could not for the life of them. It’s like me trying to play basketball. I have worked hard at it for years and I still suck. Using Kobe as a representation for how I should go about it doesn’t work. I have to work in much smaller increments than someone with inborn talent. Different levels of talent requires varying amounts of work (obviously). I believe new age philosophy downplays flat out hard work too much and cites too often those with exceptional talent.
But, truly, there is a happy medium that I can’t deny.
“What it comes down to is the modern society discriminates against the right hemisphere.â€
True, but there is an inherent bias in that quote. I would ask you: and why is that bad? Look at what left-minded activity produces and compare it to what right-minded activity produces. Which created more magic? “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.†– Arthur C. Clarke
JQP
Well I finally made JQP LOL. My plan along.
I was only teasing about the bullying.
Coincidently my daughter and I have working on a song and I can really relate to your description of the initial easiness but the blood sweating finishing. Neither of us are musically trained but we both have good “ears”. She comes up with some pretty exotic chords and unique chord progressions but she is bi-polar and attention deficit, finishing is practically impossible for her. I try to push things along but I’m no force of nature either. (It ain’t easy being right brained.) Of course we may be just doing it for our own enjoyment. That’s valid, right?
Like everyone else in the mid-60’s I bought a guitar and taught myself to play. I got a mail ordered Tiesco Del Rey Japanese guitar. It was royal blue with a strip brushed chromed pick guard, three pick-ups and a bender bar. It looked sweet. Sounded decent. Most importantly, I could afford it… I was 14… it was cheap. I was asked to join a “garage band” and our first gig was literally in a garage. I still have the guitar but the neck has warped and the last time I plugged it in an amplifer it just snap, crackled and pop. I may restore it someday but it will cost far more than it would be worth… so it will depend on which brain hemisphere present the best argument… I’m a romantic but I’m still cheap. I mostly play an eletronic keyboard now. I don’t have to tune it. I still mess with my acoustical guitar from time to time.
Composing a painting presents similiar problems.(Sidebar: Have you noticed that I tend to use alliteration a lot? Most of the time it’s unintentional. I’m not trying to be annoying!) Painting an object is really quite simple, composing a painting really isn’t. I forget who said it but… “A painting well composed is half finished.” Starting a painting is easy and fun. Finishing a painting is hard and laborious. So your point of sweat equity resonates with me. Our culture has placed way too much emphasis on mere entertainment.
I like technology. I use Photoshop often for working out compositions… and just for fun. I can get on the internet and research anything my heart desires. The things I can do with my little desktop computer are nothing short of amazing. So let me personally give a shout out to all the “techies” like you. “Yahoo!”
Still, I would argue that the reason Dr Dyer and those of his ilk will always be omnipresent is because there is a real “contant craving” for what most people precieve as “missing”. (Our own invention?) Even the “Boss” has noticed, “Everybody’s Got a Hungry Heart”. Your intelligence, knowledge, experience and techinal background has given you a well disiplined method of thinking and working. Definitions of the emphirical like “source” must drive you… and DB… a little crazy.
I am curious though, is it intelligence speculating that creates the mysteries or do the mysteries create the intelligent speculation?
Waiting in Wala Walla.
(OK, I’m not realy in Walla Walla… it’s that alliteration thing again.)
â€Of course we may be just doing it for our own enjoyment. That’s valid, right?â€
Ha! Of course. I absolutely have no argument with the idea of having fun. I never really argued against fun, or even down time. My arguments are actually more nuanced. At least, that’s my goal. I think new age philosophy encourages a hedonistic passive lifestyle, which I believe is somewhat self-defeating. The argument that inner peace is the guide to always the right choice and always the highest attainment is what I disagree with quite a bit. I am not saying inner peace is not good. Of course it is. But the highest attainment? The one true guide to decision making? A society built on it?
I do not think that “inner peace only†is actually what builds a good society (DB’s original comment to that point: “I however don’t find this true and find that there is more to be gained in a robust society which is not content with its place in the universe.†— 3/1/2007. That expresses my view perfectly.) And it does not necessarily lead to the healthiest of life, as so many believe. (I’m backed by science on that one.) That is a bit of a misunderstanding and a recent bias.
The fact that new research (and Dr. Andrew Weil included, of all people! He makes a distinction between healthy stress and unhealthy.) shows that those who have a certain amount of stress (not too much) live longer and healthier. And it seems that that is not a cultural phenomenon. That is, they (I would have to dig through my books to find the exact reference to cite) found it true in a number of African tribes researched, for example. That even within vastly different cultures the ones that statistically sustained a certain amount of stress in their life fared better than those who didn’t; those with a passive existence and “just feel good all time†actually decline in health in advanced years more rapidly than those who were pushy and willful. You probably could make an argument for a sense of purpose here. With which I would completely agree. But it is not the “inspired” purpose but the “motivated” purpose; the push, not the pull.
I have witnessed that myself (not that that is proof of anything, just a supporting observation) in life with my extremely numerous family, of whom many are now gone and so I saw many in their very advanced years. Almost to an individual (barring accidents and life-shortening illnesses) those with the pushy willfulness lived longer and with few problems than the more “relaxed†ones. (In fact, the pushiest of all outlived 5 of his sibilings, all 5 younger than him, (my mother included) and is now pushing 100.) I once thought they, the pushy ones, would be the first to die of heart attacks. But it didn’t happen that way. What happened was almost counter-intuitive unless you realize there is kind of a bias to believing that those who are the most relaxed are somehow better off.
I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t relax. I’m not even arguing it’s not good for you. What I’m arguing is that the new age view of stress is inaccurate and yet they are so unabashedly self-assured about it. They specifically, more than anything else, promote a lifestyle that is stress-free and tout that everything good comes from that. (Thus, the heavy emphasis on meditation.) It turns out (and this is very well backed, in my opinion) that “stress-free†is not as healthy as you’d think. Yes, too much stress can give one a heart attack. That’s well known. What is not well known, is that some amount of stress is needed for a healthy life. It is just part of our make up—and not the culture make up, but biological.
One of the problems with anonymous debating is that you can pigeonhole yourself into some sort of one dimensional person. (I’m all left-minded! Or I only see the good in the use of logic! Or I never need to relax!) Either the totality of who you are or even the position from which you’re making your argument is lost. But you have to assume that that is understood by the readers; that whoever is making the argument is simply making an argument and no one lives by a single argument alone. The question is: why does that individual want to push that point?
“I’m a romantic but I’m still cheap.â€
We’re alike in that regard. Tiesco Del Rey? That’s pretty exotic. I don’t know much about them. I still play guitar everyday just for practice. I have an old Les Paul, cherry sunburst and a small Marshall rig. I have an electronic piano as well, and I play that everyday too. But I now have the time. There were many years I didn’t play at all.
Does that mean you prefer the more twangy sounds of, say, Fender? Like the Telecaster? I’m partial to mid-range crunch.
â€Have you noticed that I tend to use alliteration a lot?â€
Ha! No, I didn’t pick up on that. I guess if I were to read it out loud it would probably be more apparent.
â€Definitions of the emphirical like “source†must drive you… and DB… a little crazy.â€
It’s more of the “my speculation is so accurate I will sell it to you as truth†attitude that is troublesome. I don’t have an issue with speculation as long as it is truthfully acknowledged as such. It crosses a line when you start calling it a “knowing†(speculation doesn’t demand proof, but a “knowing†does; speculating is not irresponsible, saying you have a “knowing” is) and are so confident about it as to start selling it as a way of life to others. That crosses the line of responsibility, in my opinion. A little self-doubt is in order. There is something enormously cocky about selling your speculations on the metaphysical as so factual as to suggest that everyone should base their life on it.
I’m a moral relativist. I do not believe this is any single truth so universal that you can say that everyone in every culture in every circumstance at every point in history should adhere to it. Every action must be examined within its unique context, culture and time.
That is to say, SpecTator, that I do not believe there is anything so universally true about living that anyone can give universal advice.
So, let me ask you this, SpecTator: I’m an atheist. However, can anyone be so sure of themselves as to claim that their beliefs are not only a “knowing” but part of the make up of a universal intelligence? Can anyone be so sure of themselves as to believe they speak on not only how god works but what god is and what god wants? It’s one thing to say, “I believe this!” but quite another to say your belief “is how the universal intelligence works.”
Anyone who says, “God is all loving” is merely expressing a speculative opinion and has no business claiming they are speaking a universal truth to which everyone else should believe.
Now, I want to be clear on my last comment: I am not demeaning anyone who believes that. I am simply saying that anyone who gets on a stage, preaches it for money and conveys (in any form) that it is universal truth is not truly being honest with you. So, my comment is not aimed at you, the believer.
Now, hopefully I won’t get up, have my morning coffee, look at my news reader, which lists all the posts to the blogs I monitor, and be greeted with another friendly “you’re a fucking moron!!†Now, calling me a moron might be accurate, but a “fucking†moron imparts a particular kind of “moronicness†(?) that may not actually be as bad as being a plain moron. They could be saying to me, after all, “you’re not very smart but you sure get a lot of sex!†And in order for me to get a lot of sex I must have something attractive about me that I didn’t realize before. So, they are really complimenting as if to compare me to someone like Brad Pitt. And is being unknowledgeable but getting a lot of sex such a bad way to live? Probably not. So, if I had a choice, probably being a fucking moron would be infinitely better than just being a plain moron. (I now feel much superior to those plain morons. Perhaps I am the king of morons but I’m too moronic to know it. Who knows.) So, I guess it’s no so bad after all.
when I was a kid my friend and I were riding our dirt bikes down a terrace…a very steep terrace. we were coasting on this paved slope without the brakes on, so we were really cruisin. It spiraled downwards so we didn’t see the car cruisin up the other way. around the bend the car pulls right into him realistically about 30 mph. His bike collapsed and he actually slid underneath the car. THEN-the kid gets up and of course we run off into the woods out of fear of getting in trouble(we were 9). He was fine, not a scratch.
NOW MY QUESTON:
I can’t explain his lack of injury, or present any evidence…does this mean it didn’t happen?
notice I didn’t use the words God or angels in my story. I am not going to claim any religious miracle. I just want to understand scientists:
Are the only reasons you guys don’t think something like this is possible are that you can’t explain it and have no proof? I am wondering how scientific logic can apply to everything.
and by the way JQP…after I read your last post I thought, “You’re fucking hilarious.”:)
â€Are the only reasons you guys don’t think something like this is possible are that you can’t explain it and have no proof? I am wondering how scientific logic can apply to everything.â€
Explain what exactly? That near accidents can happen? Or that you witnessed a violation of the law of causation which means you have to provide a lot more detail and specifics on the injury.
But if you’re suggesting in anyway that the boy was somehow “saved†by an unseeable force (which would need some specifics on what made you believe something supernatural intervened), then why so many others who are not saved? Are some lives more valuable and worth saving and others are not? Is that being suggested? God picks favorites and saves them but leaves others to die?
But, from a science point of view, it is anecdotal not clinical. That is the crux of the problem. Any cop knows (my brother is a detective) that several people all witnessing the same event at the same time will all see (see, not report!) something different. Thus the need for clinical observation and repeatable results. Anecdotes are simply too error prone—people gets things wrong too often and are not the accurate observers that think they are. The exact nature of the violation of causation would have to be explained and then some test set up to see if that very point is repeatable with results. If that cannot be done, it is just someone’s word.
“I am wondering how scientific logic can apply to everything.”
Why should it not? What evidence that it applies sometimes and not others? If that were true, wouldn’t clinical trials show this time and again? But they don’t. As far as I know, the laws of causation are consistent and repeatable. Do you have anything other than a personal story to back the idea that causation as we know it can be violated from time to time?
â€Are the only reasons you guys don’t think something like this is possible are that you can’t explain it and have no proof? I am wondering how scientific logic can apply to everything.â€
Explain what exactly? That near accidents can happen? Or that you witnessed a violation of the laws of physics which means you have to provide a lot more detail and specifics on the injury.
But if you’re suggesting in anyway that the boy was somehow “saved†by an unseeable force (which would need some specifics on what made you believe something supernatural intervened other than it being coincidental), then why so many others are not saved? Are some lives more valuable and worth saving than others? Is that being suggested? God picks favorites and saves them but leaves others to die? If you’re not claiming an unseeable force helping him survive, then the only alternative is coincidence. Otherwise I am not sure what you’re claiming exactly.
But, from point of view of science (I’m not a scientist, mind you, but I’ll do my best), it is anecdotal not clinical. That is the crux of the problem. Any cop knows (my brother is a detective and has shared this point many times with me, and I’m sure you know it too) that several people all witnessing the same event at the same time will all see (see, not report!) something different. Each account can very dramatically. (People are not as good at observing as they think. Thus, why magicians get away with so many cheesy sleight of hand moves.) Thus the need for clinical observation and repeatable results. Anecdotes are simply too error prone—people gets things wrong too often and are not the accurate observers that think they are. The exact nature of the violation of causation would have to be explained and then some test set up to see if that very point is repeatable with results. If that cannot be done, it is just someone’s word.
“I am wondering how scientific logic can apply to everything.”
Why should it not? What evidence that it applies sometimes and not others? If that were true, wouldn’t clinical trials show this time and again? But they don’t. As far as I know, the laws of causation are consistent and repeatable. Do you have anything other than a personal story to back the idea that causality (i.e. the basic laws of physics as it applies to cause and effect) as we know it can be violated from time to time?
â€Are the only reasons you guys don’t think something like this is possible are that you can’t explain it and have no proof? I am wondering how scientific logic can apply to everything.â€
Explain what exactly? That near accidents can happen? That people do not see what they really thought (and why magicians have jobs)? Or that you believe you witnessed a violation of the laws of physics which means you have to provide a lot more detail and specifics on the injury.
But if you’re suggesting in anyway that the boy was somehow “saved†by an unseeable force (which would need some specifics on what made you believe something supernatural intervened other than it being coincidental), then why so many others are not saved? Are some lives more valuable and worth saving than others? Is that being suggested? God picks favorites and saves them but leaves others to die or suffer? If you’re not claiming an unseeable force helping him survive, then the only alternative is coincidence. Otherwise I am not sure what you’re claiming exactly.
But, from point of view of science (I’m not a scientist, mind you, but I’ll do my best), it is anecdotal not clinical. That is the crux of the problem. Any cop knows (my brother is a detective and has shared this point many times with me, and I’m sure you know it too) that several people all witnessing the same event at the same time will all see (see, not report!) something different. Each account can very dramatically different and each is certain about what they saw–yet the contradict each other. Thus the need for clinical observation and repeatable results. Anecdotes are simply too error prone—people get things wrong too often and are not the accurate observers that think they are. The exact nature of the violation of causation would have to be explained and then some test set up to see if that very point is repeatable with results. If that cannot be done, it is just someone’s word.
“I am wondering how scientific logic can apply to everything.”
Why should it not? What evidence that it applies sometimes and not others? If that were true, wouldn’t clinical trials show this time and again? But they don’t. As far as I know, the laws of causation are consistent and repeatable. Do you have anything other than a personal story to back the idea that causality (i.e. the basic laws of physics as it applies to cause and effect) as we know it can be violated from time to time?
My apologies for the repeated posts. This site’s server went down as I was submitting and chopped up the post. The last one I believe is complete.
I didn’t bring up an unseeable force. In fact I mentioned that I didn’t include the word God or angels in the story at all.
All I wanted to know, and I got my answer, was if scientists need something to back up every single thing in life as it happens.
I saw it. I was there. But since noone saw my buddy get smooshed, but me, it therefore is a claim that needs to be backed up. Suddenly I feel like it doesn’t matter that it happened. It would only be true if everybody was lucky, or if repeated clinical tests were done on it.
That’s exactly my point. It doesn’t happen every time, but it happens sometimes.
So, now if it only happens to some people sometimes, is it not real? I’m not arguing, I’m genuinely curious.
I can’t provide more details on an injury because he wasn’t hurt. You asked if i’m suggesting if some supernatual whatever intervened, why doesn’t it intervene every time? I didn’t suggest that, and i don’t care why it doesn’t do that everytime.
What i’m saying is: does the fact that he was not injured make this event not true?
Oooh…here’s a good question. What if the detective interviewed eveeryone and they all saw (not reported) the same unexplainable thing? What if the detective saw it? Because no explanation is logical, does that make everyone wrong?
Do I have anything other than a personal story…?
No of course not. I’m not trying to prove this event. And we weren’t about to do this again and again with colored graphs and clipboards. I just want to know how science can’t see that not everything is explainable.
“What i’m saying is: does the fact that he was not injured make this event not true?
Oooh…here’s a good question. What if the detective interviewed eveeryone and they all saw (not reported) the same unexplainable thing? What if the detective saw it? Because no explanation is logical, does that make everyone wrong?”
The point is about critical thinking, not so much science. The detective should question his own observations if there are contradictory observations. (He should question them even without contradiction. Being trained in good observation, though, can make a difference. For example, if you know how conjuring works, then your skills in observing a magician are much better than those not trained. You know where the pitfalls are, whereas the untrained do not. But the detective should still question his observation from as many views as possible.)
That is the point of critical thinking and consensus building: no single observation is good enough to make a conclusion. If all you have is one observation, then you really can’t conclude anything. So, rather than jumping off the pier into the realm of “the impossible†just because you saw something once that you thought was unusual is no way near enough evidence to prove anything at all. You leave it as inconclusive. (And you must consider that you really didn’t see every detail enough to make a good conclusion anyway.)
To think critically, the first thing you do is question what it is believed you saw; really question it! Get to the bottom of it. The point is not to take things on face value but to be skeptical and dig in to find the truth.
I am somewhat knowledgeable in conjuring myself. (I can tell you how David Blaine does all of his tricks but a couple. I have a friend who is a stage magician for a living and has showed me many secrets over the years.) If I should show someone a card trick, should they then run off with that single observation and be convinced of the impossible? Is one observation good enough? (There is a rule among magicians for this very reason: never do the same trick twice in a row. Two observations can give it away.) Or should they think critically and say, “what I thought I saw was probably inaccurate.†And then think it through to locate the inaccuracy. The emphasis here is thinking things through and not accepting single observations as a conclusion.
Going back to the dectective point, why do you think that forensic evidence and crime reconstruction carries so much weight in court? If I have DNA evidence that someone was at the scene, but they have one witness (one anecdotal observation) that says they weren’t, which do think is more convincing and will win?
I forgot to mention this, and it may apply. (I really don’t know what you think is “impossible” about what you saw.) A person lying at a particular angle on their side can have a 2,000 pound car roll over their shoulder without incident. I saw this demonstrated once on TV. I do not mean that as proof of anything. Nor do I remember enough about it to expound on it. But I don’t think it is “impossible” to escape being run over by a car without injury. Unlikely, yes. Improbable, yes. Impossible? Absoutely not.
I believe that the reason that that scenario (I just described) doesn’t result in the person being crushed is in the weight distribution of the car. That is, the one wheel that rides up on the shoulder is not really carrying all the weight of the car. It’s carrying very little and it’s in motion not standing still, so it’s a bit of an illusion. Most of the weight of the car is on the other 3 wheels.
JQP is right – slipping under a car with no injuries is very improbable but not impossible. So proof is not necessary for a story like that since it CAN happen. But if someone were to say that they can communicate with God, is that impossible? First we would have to be clear on which definition of God is being used since everyone has there own different idea of what God is or is not. Bur if we were to say that God is the universal intelligence that flows through everything and everyone and is also all loving and does not judge nor punish, is there a way our known science can prove that someone can communicate with this energy assuming it had a consiousness?
I think a lie detector test would disprove a fraud, but if the same lie detector proves someone truthful then people would say, “The person doesn’t realize that it was all in his/her head. They think they’re telling the truth, but it was just…then insert “logical explanation” here.
So, there can’t be a difinitive test to prove contact. You would almost have to go by thier word. People are so turned off by televangelists because they confuse the word of Jimmy Swaggart with the word of God.
I have actually heard people say, “Jimmy Swaggart is a liar, so I don’t believe in God.” That is crazy. That is the equivalent of me saying, “Mr. X told me that you must send me $10 so I can build a church.” So, obviously Mr. X never said that, but instead of people just thinking I was a fraud, they would in addition somehow think Mr. X was a fraud.
It is actually scary how people think sometimes.
So, that is my longwinded answer to that. Even if science could prove it, some people would never believe it.
It’s almost like-did we or didn’t we go to the moon? Some people will buy it, and some people won’t. Regardless of proof.
sorry, I meant to say that some people are so turned off by God becuase of televangelists.
or perhaps because of people like Dyer.
also, after reading JQP’s explanation I understand the difference between improbable and impossible. But I still don’t think it applies to the supernatural. There are just too many accounts of life after death expiriences and spiritual encounters in general by respectable people(not Swaggart or Tammy Faye) for me to believe that they could all be false claims…but having said that, I am not claiming to have seen any myself, and I do see the weight distribution factor of the car/bike example as a possibility. Not a definitive answer, but a probability.
Jodee, I think I found some corroborating evidence for Jesus Christ outside of the new testament. The first century historian, Josephus, wrote:“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was called the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Another first century historian from Rome, Tacitus, wrote: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
I also stumbled onto a debate between two scholars that give more evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5VE1lE0rzo&feature=related
Proverbs 17:10 A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more than a hundred lashes a fool.
I wonder how Buzz Aldrin feels about the moon landing conspiracy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcoyiJdeWT4
Proverbs 18:21 The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit.
A critique on critical thinking.
Most of us aren’t use to using the “scientific method” so how about thinking as if you were on a jury.
The police have finished their investigation of the crime. After processing the forensic evidence, getting witnesses testimony, establishing possible motives and opportunity, calculating time lines, they arrest and charge JQP with the crime.
JQP says, “Prove it.” (He says that a lot.)
The prosecutor looks at all the evidence and decides to go to trial. You are picked to sit on the jury. You have to consider all the evidence presented by the prosecution and by the defense. You listen to witnesses. You listen to experts. You have try to follow and understand forensic science of the evidence. You have make judgments about the reliability of the witnesses. It’s a big responsibility so you are serious, studious and carefully considering all possibilities.
The prosecution and the defense rests their case. You deliberate with 11 other people and reach a verdict.
“We find JQP guilty of killing Miss Scarlet in the Library with the Candle Stick Holder.”
You have decided that JQP was guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the arguments and the evidence… and not because of your emotional reactions to his contentious comments in this blog.
You used “critical thinking”.
Go forth, and think critically in all endeavors. Unless it’s me on trial. Then just “believe” me when I say I’m an innocent man.
SpecTator, your argument commits a logic fallacy but I don’t recall the Latin name off hand. But finding a flaw in one system does not prove the validity of another.
Really, should we just take everyone’s word for everything? The alternative to your scenario is anyone can go to prison based on anyone’s testimony which is far, far more likely to be flawed. So, I think anyone reasonable would agree that they’d rather have a system that requires proof of guilt than the alternative. The burden of proof rests with the one making the claim.
Do you really want a civilization that doesn’t demand proof? Historically we were there once and that is how we got things like Inquisitions and all the well known great injustices against innocent people. Are you suggesting that is what we return to? The “age of reason†(historical distinction) ushered in a less violent and far, far more tolerant society than ever existed before. At its core is critical thinking. It has made your world unimaginably safer. Why would we go back?
So, SpecTator, I would rather take my chances in a system that demands proof than one that didn’t. It’s not perfect (nothing is) but it is better than the alternative.
Showing specific cases where critical thinking fails to prove truth in no way validates the notion that truth can just be divined without it. I can think of nothing more naive and dangerous than to live in a world that just believes anything anyone says without demanding proof. The progress of tolerence and compassion rests squarely on the shoulders of critical thinking. It is through reason that our best chancing of finding the truth of anything exists. Without the test of reason, all claims are equally true–including all the dangerous ones.
Correction: It is through reason that our best chances of finding the truth of anything exists.
Also, SpecTator, it is incorrect to say I demand proof a lot. What I have asked most often is that others back their claims (especially the wild ones) with at least a line of reasoning that includes some amount of supporting material. That is far from asking for proof.
Accepting ideas without asking for any validity is foolish. People who do so are the direct targets of scam artists and nuts who will convince them to drink the kool-aid. Scam artists depend on those who don’t ask for proof. If you do not require proof for the claims of others especially when they’re extraordinary, then you are vulnerable and are acting foolishly.
Regarding near death experiences: there has been quite of bit study, but nothing yielding. One study the researcher put up a marquee display (small one) on top of a self in a hospital where the staff performed resuscitations. It had an unusual message on it: “The popsicles are in bloom.†People who were resuscitated and claimed to see and hear the room and doctors from float above were asked about the marquee. The marquee was in place for over 5 years. Not one person claiming an NDE said they saw it. Not one.
A lot of people claim near death experiences. However, more do not. For those resuscitated believers are actually a minority.
Another point on me asking for proof, SpecTator, I believe Jodee (for all I disagree with her about) presents some convincing lines of reasoning. That is what I have asked for, not proof. And Andrew, as well, even though I personally will not buy into religion without extraordinary proof, still presents some very reasonable points of consideration. They both give commendable efforts in explaining their positions. But quite a lot of people (and not just in this blog, but many others) simply take a superficial acceptance at whatever idea they’ve adopting and refuse to peel its layers at all; refuse to examine it. At least Jodee and Andrew peel the layers of their beliefs and examine them. That’s really all I asked.
Hmmmm.
Cleary.. or evidently unclearly… we are processing information differently JQP. My trial scenario was in support of critical thinking. Did you interpret it as a satire?
I thought a trial would be a good analogy. I intented it as an example of a situation where we have an obligation to be at our “thinking” best. It’s the juror’s responsibility to elevate his examining and reasoning skills for the task at hand. It is in fact the “juror’s duty”. At a trial with serious charges we don’t have the luxury of making assumptions or for sloppy thinking. Most jurors take this task very seriously and usually rise to the occasion and do a great job.
I was making the case that we should all act like a juror… MORE OFTEN.
I suggest that “belief” and “faith” should be held under the same examination and cross examination to make it’s case.
Don’t mistake my attempts at humor as clues of a lack of seriousness or as evidence of a flibbertigibbet. (I may be guilty, but only as a petty offense… misdemeanor at most.)
I’m no scholar. I’m not Mensa material. But I don’t understand the logic fallacy I committed. Please enlighten me.
I know you know the full meaning of “critique”, did you think I didn’t? I have no other explanation of the misunderstanding.
ok, now my posts aren’t posting, so if I post similar stuff it’s not my fault. I’m writing from memory of what I just posted.
fourth time I tried posting this…i’ll try to break it down in smaller posts.
ok, that seemed to work.
Regarding after death(not near death) expiriences;
Nothing will EVER be yielding as it can never be proven.
That is why the laws of causation don’t apply to everything.
And about having a society where we go solely on the word of our citizens; that is ridiculous.
That is too much of a blanket statement.
All I’m trying to say(or post in this case), is that although science is really good for proving crime scenes, it is not applicable to spiritual encounters. Because nobody will accept the positive proof. Even if two total strangers desribed the same accounts of afterlife expiriences, it would be written off as coincidence as I said about the lie detector test scenario.
“A lot of people claim near death experiences. However, more do not.”
That proves my point that that some things don’t work everytime. In the spiritual realm anyway.
So, science and the laws of causation are great for proving many things and I won’t dispute that, but I can’t accept that they can apply to everything. Impossible. Because the very definition of a miracle is when God suspends those laws for a brief moment in time for His will. Not every time, and not for everybody, and I’ll never be able to explain His reasons, but That has to be the answer.
And I just realized how many times I misspelled “experiences”.
By, the way, anyone else having trouble posting?
“it is not applicable to spiritual encounters. Because nobody will accept the positive proof.”
What “positive proof?” What clinical proof is there that a soul exists?
Perhaps that means that spirituality is bogus; non-existent; made up through cultural memes passed down through the ages from the superstitious. Why is that not a possibilty? Why is it not possible that spirituality can’t be proved because it is just not true?
Why is it not a very real possibility that those before us simply did not have the means to understand their world and simply got it all wrong? Look at how much else they got wrong; why would spirituality be the one thing they got right?
After all, as I pointed out before, out of all the hundreds of gods humanity has created over the ages, and most likely you don’t believe any of them but either one or a few or just a handful, why would this one god be different? That is, how is it you don’t believe in Baal-Hammon but believe in the Abrahamic god? Whatever reason you use to dismiss Baal-Hammon, does it not apply to God as well?
you are corect JQP. The God I worship is the God I chose to worship. I also believe in the devil. So, there is the possibility of false prophets, false gods, demons, angels, buddahs, etc.
I’m just making a choice, that’s all.
Of course all those before us could be wrong, and you could be wrong, but I made my choice. It’s a gamble, but what does it hurt to believe in something based in loving one another, forgivness, charity, etc.?
Really…what does it hurt?
What does it hurt if I chose to live my life based on these principles? What if, what if what if?
But-what if I don’t and I’m wrong? Eternity is a long time.
Heck of a gamble, eh?
There will never be solid proof, JQP…if that is what you’re wating for…
And if you just don’t believe, then that’s fine too(as I’m sure you know:))
Beautiful thing about America. Choice of religion.
Well, folks I think I’ve said all I had to say. Anything else would just be repeating myself.
It has been a pleasure blogging with y’all.
JQP-be careful on your travels to Vietnam. You’re a smart man, a good man, and I’ll pray for you. Take care everybody!
JQP I was hoping that i could get some feedback from you regarding my statements on 3/22.
Sorry, MetallicaJoe. My news reader buffers only so many posts and so I only see the last few. (Otherwise I have to get on the site and browse through everything. And this site is so slow!)
Also, I’m preparing so head out to SE China next week and have not been able to sustain my normal level of attention. My apologies. When I get time here I will go through them. I don’t mean to ignore you.
â€But if someone were to say that they can communicate with God, is that impossible? First we would have to be clear on which definition of God is being used since everyone has there own different idea of what God is or is not. Bur if we were to say that God is the universal intelligence that flows through everything and everyone and is also all loving and does not judge nor punish, is there a way our known science can prove that someone can communicate with this energy assuming it had a consiousness?â€
Good question, MetallicaJoe. I’ll do my best to articulate my thoughts on that.
You’re right in that that really comes down to one’s definition of God. That is, for someone who believes it is a universal “energy†(I have some problems with the use of that word here, but that’s another topic so I’ll ignore it) that resides in all things then it would be difficult to experiment with cause and effect methods because that requires one entity poking at another. But this seems to me to be somewhat of a pantheistic view. By that I mean, more or less, a simply semantic shift in what we call the universe. But I understand that it also suggests a metaphysical component, as well. But I also know that it is being suggested that we exist in that metaphysical realm at the same time, not independently of, the physical; you would be the “energy†and not separate from it. So, how do you step out of it to test it externally?
Now when you say “can communicate with this energy†you just jumped from the “energy in everything†to an “energy†that is separate and distinct. So, it is somewhat contradictory. If you believe there is a entity separate from us that requires “communicating†in order to “connect†with it, then surely that can be tested. If you believe we are the energy, and not separate and distinct, then experimenting doesn’t make sense because it would not require communicating.
So, assuming a separate entity for a minute, what are the lines of communication? Prayer is usually cited here. But it matters if the separate entity intervening or passive since it is being suggested it has 100% freewill. If it is claimed that prayer alters in anyway an expected conclusion from one outcome to another, then that can absolutely be tested and has. For example, I cited the study of prayer on recovering patients. The ones not receiving prayer fared statistically better than those who did, but the conclusion is that it simply had no effect, not that not praying was better. But it was then cited by believers that when prayer was subject to scrutiny God knew it and, therefore, did not intervene. (His freewill.) (I’m ingoing a lot of what I would normally say about that response.) So, for all intents and purposes a God which does not react when “poked†for whatever reason could not be tested; no effect. We must have an effect that is distinct from “normal outcome†in order to devise any sort of test. I believe that this non-intervening god, or the “oneness with god,†belief systems by definition make it impossible to test. I believe that that is what the believers intend in order to explain exactly why their believe system is immune to testing. The belief system itself was designed to make it non-testable through cause and effect. But that is just my opinion.
Now the problem with all that is that you can substitute “God†in what I wrote with absolutely any creature you want to devise and it still works. So it did not get us anywhere. That is, if universal flying elephants are invisible, passive to probing, and possess absolute freewill. then I cannot devise an experiment that exposes them because they must respond in some way in order to do so. No response proves nothing. So, we could go on with this forever and never leave square one of our understanding.
So if I can gain absolutely no ground in understanding by proving a passive non-intervening god that does not respond to any kind of probing then why would I adopt the belief? Since it is passive anyway what possible good would it do me to believe it? It’s non-intervening, or I am completely at one with it, by definition. Believing it creates no form of improved position for me. Some say, “it makes me feel better (i.e. inner peace).†Then it is really the Santa Claus effect (again). I believe in him because it makes be feel good and I need no basis in experiment to do so, is what they’re saying. Creating an abstract ideal in one’s mind produces comfort in many.
It is my opinion, however, this is a somewhat childish state (I do not mean that pejoratively but as a state from which we start and do not grow)—a position in personal development such that it has not grown beyond the need for an abstract ideal in order to come to terms with the world (which is how you get inner peace—coming to terms with the world). That is the real question: why is an abstract ideal (a perfect god) a necessary component for inner peace for some? It indicates that the individual is lacking the ability to come to terms with something in the world and the ideal compensates it; fills in something missing in that person’s life. If you can find happiness, morality, and inner peace without resorting to any kind of abstract ideal other than just those goals (full acceptable of the world on its own terms) isn’t that the highest level of existence of all?
Anyway, just my thoughts.
At least one correction to my many typos: “..full acceptance of the world on its own terms…”
I need to turn auto-completion off on my word processor because it anticipates the wrong words too often. But I also guess I could do a better job of editing before posting. Oh, well.
Okay. Since I had so many typos, I’m editing and re-posting this since it will probably be my last until I return in the summer.
â€But if someone were to say that they can communicate with God, is that impossible? First we would have to be clear on which definition of God is being used since everyone has there own different idea of what God is or is not. Bur if we were to say that God is the universal intelligence that flows through everything and everyone and is also all loving and does not judge nor punish, is there a way our known science can prove that someone can communicate with this energy assuming it had a consiousness?â€
Good question, MetallicaJoe. I’ll do my best to articulate my thoughts on that.
You’re right in that that really comes down to one’s definition of God. That is, for someone who believes it is a universal “energy†(I have some problems with the use of that word here, but that’s another topic so I’ll ignore it) that resides in all things then it would be difficult to experiment with cause and effect methods because that requires one entity poking at another. But this seems to me to be somewhat of a pantheistic view. By that I mean, more or less, a simple semantic shift in what we name the universe. But I understand that it also suggests a metaphysical component, as well. But I also know that it is being suggested that we exist in that metaphysical realm at the same time, not independently of, the physical; you would be the “energy†and not separate from it. So, how do you step out of it to test it externally?
Now when you say “can communicate with this energy†you just jumped from the “energy in everything†to an “energy†that is separate and distinct. So, it is somewhat contradictory. If you believe there is an entity separate from us that requires “communicating†in order to “connect†with it, then surely that can be tested. If you believe we are the energy, and not separate and distinct, then experimenting doesn’t make sense because it would not require communicating.
So, assuming a separate entity for a minute, what are the possible lines of communication? Prayer is usually cited here. But it matters if the separate entity is intervening or passive since it is being suggested it has 100% freewill. If it is claimed that prayer alters in anyway an expected conclusion from one outcome to another, then that can absolutely be tested and has. For example, I cited the study of prayer on recovering patients. The ones not receiving prayer fared statistically better than those who did, but the conclusion is that it simply had no effect (i.e., normal distribution), not that not praying was better. But it was then cited by believers that when prayer was subject to scrutiny God knew it and, therefore, did not intervene; his freewill. (I’m ignoring a lot of what I would normally say about that response.) So, for all intents and purposes a God which does not react when “poked†for whatever reason could not be tested; no effect. We must have an effect that is distinct from “normal outcome†in order to devise any sort of test. I believe that this non-intervening god, or the “oneness with god,†belief systems by definition make it impossible to test. I believe that that is what the believers intend in order to explain exactly why their belief system is immune to testing. The belief system itself was designed to make it non-testable through cause and effect. But that is just my opinion.
Now the problem with all that is that you can substitute “God†in what I wrote with absolutely any creature you want to devise and it still works. So it did not get us anywhere. That is, if universal flying elephants are invisible, passive to probing, and possess absolute freewill. then I cannot devise an experiment that exposes them because they must respond in some way in order to do so. No response proves nothing. So, we could go on with this forever and never leave square one of our understanding.
So if I can gain absolutely no ground in understanding by proving a passive non-intervening god that does not respond to any kind of probing then why would I adopt the belief? Since god is passive anyway what possible good would it do me to believe it? It’s non-intervening, or I am completely at one with it, by definition. Believing it creates no form of improved position for me. Some say, “it makes me feel better (i.e. inner peace).†Then they are really claiming the Santa Claus effect (again). I believe in him because it makes be feel good and I need no basis in experiment to do so, is what they’re saying. Creating an abstract ideal in one’s mind produces the desired comfort.
It is my opinion, however, this is a somewhat childish state (I do not mean that pejoratively but as a state from which we start and do not grow)—a position in personal development such that it has not grown beyond the need for an abstract ideal in order to come to terms with the world (which is how you achieve inner peace—coming to terms with the world). That is the real question: why is an abstract ideal (a perfect god or any perfect entity outside ourselves) a necessary component for inner peace for some? It indicates that the individual is lacking the ability to come to terms with something in the world and the ideal compensates it; fills in something missing in that person’s life. If you can find happiness, morality, and inner peace without resorting to any kind of abstract ideal other than just those (full acceptance of the world on its own terms) isn’t that the highest level of existence of all?
Anyway, just my thoughts.
If you can find happiness, morality, and inner peace without resorting to any kind of abstract ideal other than just those (full acceptance of the world on its own terms) isn’t that the highest level of existence of all?
I have yet to find this inner peace. True inner peace. And I have resorted to Jesus Christ.
More C.S. Lewis to articulate my argument,
“The terrible thing, the almost impossible thing, is to hand over your whole self–all your wishes and precautions–to Christ. But it is far easier than what we are all trying to do instead. For what we are trying to do is to remain what we call ‘ourselves’, to keep personal happiness as our great aim in life, and yet at the same time be ‘good’. We are all trying to let our mind and heart go their own way–centered on money or pleasure or ambition–and hoping, in spite of this, to behave honestly and chastely and humbly. And that is exactly what Christ warned us you could not do. As He said, a thistle cannot produce figs.”
My little over 2 year walk with Christ has taught me that every day will not be happy go lucky inner peace day.
We thought you might be interested —
SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST
Inquiring into the Origin of Matter and Life
January-March 2008
Bhaktivedanata Institute’s latest quarterly newsletter
is now available online.
You can download the January-March 2008 issue from:
http://scienceandscientist.org/current.php
______________________________ ______________________________ __
What’s it about?
Modern science has generally been directed toward investigating
the material world, excluding consideration of the conscious
scientist who is essential to the whole process, since, of
course, the very existence of the scientific endeavor itself
depends upon consciousness. Complete scientific knowledge must
consequently include both objective science and subjective
consciousness.
In addition to other programs, Bhaktivedanta Institute’s Science
and Scientist Newsletter is humbly offered to inspire scientists
and scholars to contribute their sincere efforts toward
developing this grand synthesis. The result will be valuable not
only for helping to better understand the “hard” problems of
science such as the nature and origin of life and the cosmos, the
mind-brain connection, artificial intelligence, etc. But the
pressing problems of ethics in science, world peace, and
interfaith dialog will also benefit from a more inclusive
scientific worldview.
In our modern era science and religion are the predominating
influences determining the fate of mankind. Promoting and
developing a culture of harmony between such diverse fields has
the potential to expand our conception of reality and advance
human knowledge in the new millennium, in which it is said the
study of life will be pre-eminent. Let us welcome the dawn of
that new epoch with great hope and determined endeavor.
______________________________ ______________________________ __
Newsletter Homepage: http://www.scienceandscientist.org
Newsletter Subscription:
http://www.scienceandscientist.org/subscribe.html
Please send comments/questions to:
The majority of people I know who say to think outside the box, haven’t even figured out what is inside the box yet.
You missed the boat! You are thinking too much in your box. The word spiritual only means that which is to be learned. When we are learning we evolve. As we evolve we create abundance. Think outside of the box and don’t assume.
Wayne Dyer, as many before, and many yet to be, is but one person who writes and speaks of his individual way of life.
Is there an absolute in his way ?
What is “life” ?
What is “reality” ?
Do we ever “know” anything ? ….. and just what is “knowing” ?
Questions await answers . Answers await more questions . Does this cycle ever end ?
Will life ever be understood ?
Will we know how it all works ? …… Maybe we already do , but not in the way we think we should, could or would .
This blog has become dreadfully boring since JQP left. Can we invigorate some thought?
Garth -There are many answers to life’s questions. I believe Jesus Christ has those answers. I have found multiple historic sources to support his existence and his teachings. However, it is important to continue to research and discern his word.
If you follow Dr. Dyer, then you may as well follow any monkey who can write in complete sentences. Would you follow financial advice from someone who files bankruptcy?
God is the universal intelligence that flows through everything and everyone and is also all loving and does not judge nor punish, is there a way our known science can prove that someone can communicate with this energy assuming it had a consiousness?
MetallicaJoe -If God loves you, don’t you think God would reprimand you when you are going down the wrong path. That God would love you enough to suggest a better path. Why is it that you view punishment as illogical and negative?
I think many people judge Christianity, not on factual evidence, but on people they know to be Christians. Or on horrific events that were perpetrated in the name of Christ. Again, not based on the discernment the word or on Jesus Christ.
“Theology is, in a sense, an experimental science. It is simple religions that are the made up ones. When I say it is an experimental science ‘in a sense’, I mean that it is like the other experimental sciences in some ways, but not in all. If you are a geologist studying rocks, you have to go and find the rocks. They will not come to you, and if you go to them they cannot run away. The initiative lies all on your side. They cannot either help or hinder. But suppose you are a zoologist and want to take photos of wild animals in their native habitats. That is a bit different from studying rocks. The wild animals will not come to you, BUT they can run away from you. Unless you keep very quiet, they will. There is beginning to be a tiny little trace of initiative on their side.
Now a stage higher; suppose you want to get to know a human person. If he is determined not to let you, you will not get to know him. You have to win his confidence. In this case the initiative is equally divided- it takes two to make a friendship.
When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And in fact, He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others- not because He has favorites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favorites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one.
You can put this another way by saying that while in other sciences the instruments you use are things external to yourself(microscopes and telescopes), the instrument through which you see God is your whole self. And if a man’s self is not kept clean and bright, his glimpse of God will be blurred- like the moon seen throuygh a dirty telescope. That is why horrible nations have horrible religions. They have been looking at God through a dirty lens.
God can show Himself as He really is only to real men(and women). And that means not simply to men who are individually good, but to men who are united together in a body, loving one another, helping one another, showing Him to one another. For that is what God meant humanity to be like.
If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”
-C.S.Lewis
Atheists believe the world has no meaning. If the whole world has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word with no meaning.
Okay, I’ll invigorate. But a warning I’m not nice like JQP.
Andrew your full of it.
“There are many answers to life’s questions. I believe Jesus Christ has those answers. I have found multiple historic sources to support his existence and his teachings. However, it is important to continue to research and discern his word.
If you follow Dr. Dyer, then you may as well follow any monkey who can write in complete sentences. Would you follow financial advice from someone who files bankruptcy?”
Oh, where to begin. First of all what does the historical existence of a preacher many years ago have to do with believing anything he said. You can dredge up tons of historical evidence for tons of prophets over the years. Some much older than Mr. Jesus, and many who have a lot more historical evidence than the little guy who very few noticed from Israel.
Face it, your basing what you believe on a book which wasn’t even written by the guy you profess had all the answers. Its a book full of all sorts of problems, like for instance, its reluctance to condemn slavery. The older version of the book contain, at best, morally reprehensible behavior (the old testament god was an angry god who wan’t exactly a nice guy.)
And what the heck does whether someone followed for bankruptcy have to do with whether you believe them or not? I don’t believe much Wayne Dyer says but its not because he’s filed for bankruptcy: it’s because I find his teaching fairly contentless.
“Atheists believe the world has no meaning. If the whole world has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word with no meaning.”
What a load of crap (see I’m not so nice.) Your version of meaning includes things like “this universe exists to glorify god.” What sort of meaning is that? That’s just as contentless of a statement as any I’ve ever seen. And yet you insist that athiests, because they want to deal with the world as it is, not as some fairy tales tell them the world is, are somehow inferior. Yes, those who accept the world for how it is, and don’t go projecting their silly historic unsupported unverifiable ideas on the universe, are inferior? Bullpucky.
And finally, onto your hero C.S. who has, in my readings, about the worst grasp of logic of any person I’ve ever read:
“If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”
Oh, yes, of course it is SO hard to be Christian! What with the praying and believeing and faithing. Oh, look at you. You’re a Christian! It must be so hard to be you. And of course because its hard this justifies the religion! What impectable logic, taking two totally incomparable things and putting them together into an argument.
Am I angry? Yes. I’m angry that so many people like you Andrew throw away your lives and instead of trying to justifying your own life by, oh say, doing good for goods sake or loving people selflessly because thats what makes the world better, you have to pull in an entire edifice of made up fairy tales. Not to mention the fact that large portions of those who follow these fairy tales end up being the most hateful bigotted people I’ve ever met.
Maybe I am loving you by telling you to pull your head out of the sand. Telling someone they are throwing their life away is kind of loving, you know. Tolerance is a different issue.
Yeah we’re all not perfect people Big insight, there. Sad that it can be leveraged into subjecting a whole legion of people to mindlessness acceptance of ideas.
Would you take advice from someone whose two thousand years dead, never wrote what you know about him, and for all we know could have had just as many problems as Dr. Dyer?
Me personally I wouldn’t take advice from either of them. The distance between Dr. Dyer and Jesus seems to me very small.
What makes you so sure?
Oh, yeah, right, someone told you that.
I don’t need nice to have a conversation.
Not to mention the fact that large portions of those who follow these fairy tales end up being the most hateful bigotted people I’ve ever met.
Sounds like you are very tolerant and loving. You attack me by saying that I’m throwing my life away. And in the next hypocritical sentence you profess to build a better world for the sake of all humanity. Love people selflessly. Doesn’t seem to work for you
I believe that we are all connected through dna and sin. We all have it. You can do your good works all day Dave, but you are still tempted by your sin.
Would you heed marital advice from someone who has been divorced twice? i.e. Dr. Dyer
If Dr. Dyer were born in the first century, I doubt there would have been much evidence left of his life.
I do understand what you are trying to say: Dyer, Jesus, Gandhi, and Mohammed are all similar. You think they are used to fill the gaps in our intelligence. Or to keep the peasants happy.
The whole world is going to pot. So just smoke some.
What makes you so sure?
Oh, yeah, right, someone told you that.
If your traffic where you live is like it is here, then you probably look for the best route to your destination.
The best source is usually the news. So if nbc news reports an accident then generally you believe it. But, just to make sure you check your local news, the internet, or maybe cbs or abc news. Maybe a friend also tells you about the accident. These other sources corroborate the original news report. You can choose to believe their story or get into traffic and view the accident yourself.
More than fifty percent of people recently surveyed believed lasers work using sound. If I used them to bet at even odds, I would be a poor man fast. Just because a lot of people think they know something doesn’t mean they do.
And, I might note, since Christianity makes up roughly a third of the world’s population, you aren’t even in the situation to argue that the majority believe in what you do.
I argue my side with corroborating evidence. Not with majority rules. And these corroborations are not just from sympathetic Christians. In fact Christians have done more harm than good in creating acceptable forms of evidence. For example the writings of Josephus have interpolations from Christian authors which make it look like he wrote Jesus is the Christ when in fact most scholars believe he wrote Jesus was called the Christ. His writings still, however, give credibility to a man who was followed by many even after he was crucified on the cross.
You say 50 percent of people. Does people refer to the entire population of the earth? Can u be more specific? I know I wasn’t interviewed, but I can tell you I would have checked the don’t know box.
Anyway, this is how history is written, with corroborating evidence. The evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is substantial.
The evidence for the existence of many past religious leaders is substantial. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_founders_of_major_religions for example. But existence is a lot more than proof that your the son of God or that you know jack shit what your talking about. Considering the history of religious leaders who have popped up over the years who are mutually exclusive, I’d say thats pretty strong evidence that none of the know what they’re talking about. The fact that most people religious affiliation comes mostly from where they were born is further evidence that you believe what you are taught to believe.
Even if you include unlabeled people, Christianity is going to get to 50 percent. The numbers are roughly 33 percent Christian (that includes Mormons, and some parts of Christianity that many might object to) 20 percent Islaamic. 16 percent non-religious (half of which are theist and half of which are not), 14 percent Hindu, 6 percent Budhist, 6 percent Chinese traditional.
The fact that most people religious affiliation comes mostly from where they were born is further evidence that you believe what you are taught to believe.
It’s amazing then that Christianity ever spread. If religion stays in the family so to speak.
Looking at the wikipedia article, I see they use the politically correct “B.C.E.”
(before Christian era.)
I scrolled down to the bottom of the wikipedia page to search the sources. And surprisingly there were none. Usually a list of sources is available. This is not corroborating evidence.
This is a list of founders of religions compiled by a fifth grader. Dissapointing. I thought you had something exceptional.
Andrew has anyone told you you are petty? Sheesh dude how dense can you get.
1) Do you know nothing of how populations spread? Family sizes greater than 2 imply that the population grows. If those people are a waring type, like oh, say the Roman Catholic Church, then your community will grow. Dude you really need to take some basic math and science classes.
2) Basing a Calendar on a dude whose birthdate we don’t even know is as stupid as any other labeling. Not to mention the fact that the western calendar is a hodge podge of messed up problems. B.C.E. is what you use when you don’t want to force your goddamn religion down that majority of the world that doesn’t believe what you do.
3) Dude did you click on the links and read about the people? That’s where the sources are listed. Are you really that ignorant that you’ve never heard of the people on that list. The world, dude is a lot bigger than the U.S.ofA
Do I have to take your hand and lead you down every goddamn part of these arguments. I love how everytime I tell you something you go off and spout in a different direction. Wonderful that tactic, yes.
Dude, I get it. Christianity birthed and conquered it’s way to become the majority. All of the differing factions inside Christianity can be attributed to this type of familial growth. Just as agnosticism and/or atheism could also be said to be passed down from father to son.
Although I’m sure you feel that you have thoroughly thought through all of the world religions regardless of your upbringing. And have come to the conclusion that religion equals superstition and to believe in no God is the most reasonable conclusion.
I love how everytime I tell you something you go off and spout in a different direction. Just like I love your tactic of condescension. Put down the other person to make yourself feel superior may have worked on the playground, but when it’s 2 adults, it has little effect.
Oh yes, once again one of my favorites: “Elitist Liberal Smug Superior Hippy!” Kettle: black.
There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death. -Proverbs 14:12
The majority of people I know who say to think outside the box, haven’t even figured out what is inside the box yet.
Comment by Dave Bacon — 4/3/2008
I’m a little behind, I see, but this one caught my eye because #1 I see we’re finally hearing from Dave and #2 Dave, you’re soooo right on with this one.
Andrew, I’m sorry to say you missed the mark rather pathetically in what I’m guessing was an attempt to address my questions of 2/19/08. I’m giving you a huge benefit of the doubt here, because logically, you didn’t show me anything. In fact, you kind pulled a Dr. Dyer on me. But then, having been where you are, I know that logic has absolutely nothing to do with it. That would be where “faith” comes in. “Faith” is the answer to all questions that cannot be answered; to all answers that cannot be quantified.
I totally understand why atheists are atheists, but I’m not willing to go there myself, because frankly, I don’t think the evidence is conclusive. I think there’s a third option neither side is considering. But that’s just me.
Dave, give yourself a break and maybe consider the possibility that because the vast majority of humans in general seem to have an unquenchable need to believe in someone/something bigger than themselves, perhaps they are those who prefer slavery in whatever form they are most comfortable. The rest of us benefit from the fact that it seems to keep them in control of themselves.
Over the last year, I’ve pretty much given up trying to enlighten ANY Christian about the obvious flaws of their paradigm – the box they don’t even understand and don’t know the half of what’s really in there. All they see is the head of the pony and don’t see that he’s in crap up to the bridle.
That being said, I do have some empathy for them and I don’t try to rock their boats much anymore. The world is going to heck in a hand basket and if that’s what they need to cope, then fine. My only objections are them trying to re-convert me and then turning around and drugging themselves and voting like mindless idiots. But even that is somewhat forgivable when one considers the following:
“The secret of American schooling is that it doesn’t teach the way children learn, and it isn’t supposed to; school was engineered to serve a concealed command economy and a deliberately re-stratified social order….Life according to school is dull and stupid, only consumption promises relief: Coke, Big Macs, fashion jeans, that’s where real meaning is found, that is the classroom’s lesson, however indirectly delivered.
“Work in classrooms isn’t significant work; it fails to satisfy real needs pressing on the individual; it doesn’t answer real questions [that]experience raises in the young mind; it doesn’t contribute to solving any problem encountered in actual life. The net effect of making all schoolwork external to individual longings, experiences, questions, and problems is to render the victim listless….Growth and mastery come only to those who vigorously self-direct. Initiating, creating, doing, reflecting, freely associating, enjoying privacy – these are precisely what the structures of schooling are set up to prevent, on one pretext or another.
“The strongest meshes of the school net are invisible. Constant bidding for a stranger’s attention creates a chemistry producing the common characteristics of modern schoolchildren: whining, dishonesty, malice, treachery, cruelty. Unceasing competition for official favor in the dramatic fish bowl of a classroom delivers cowardly children, little people sunk in chronic boredom, little people with no apparent purpose for being alive….
“The most destructive dynamic is identical to that which causes caged rats to develop eccentric or even violent mannerisms when they press a bar for sustenance on an aperiodic reinforcement schedule (one where food is delivered at random, but the rat doesn’t suspect). Much of the weird behavior school kids display is a function of the aperiodic reinforcement schedule. And the endless confinement and inactivity to slowly drive children out of their minds. Trapped children, like trapped rats, need close management. Any rat psychologist will tell you that.
“As I watched it happen, it took about three years to break most kids….”
The above excerpt is perhaps even more shocking when you know who wrote it: John Taylor Gatto, Teacher of the Year; New York public school teacher for 30 years. He quit the year he was awarded Teacher of the Year. The book from which this excerpt is taken is called: The Underground History of American Eduction. I highly recommend it for those interested in knowing to some extent why we are where we are as a society. The caste system is alive and well in the USA.
On some level, religion adopts many of the social engineering principles adopted by the architects of age segregated classroom based schooling.
One has to be willing to look at everything in the box before they can truly be ready to think/go outside of it.
And Andrew – just a tip: when someone is questioning the veracity of the Bible, don’t try to prove your point by answering from the very document in question.
There are two types of brainiaks debating in this forum.
1) those who use their left brain (logical, reasoning, calculating) more often and
2) the right brianers (illogical, intuitive, knowing, feeling, philosophical)…
And that is just fine.
Dr. Wayne Dyer’s message is for everyone, but mainly to the right brainers. He does, however, aim to bringing much resource to tppease the left brainers. He did a joint talk show with Deepak Chopra (well renowned physicist etc) and I saw him at the I Can Do It Conference in Toronto in Febuary.
Several ‘spiritualist’ for lack of better word, were there. From Sylvia Brown (not really my type but much respect to her) to others i know not of.
One person that i must say i absolutely loved is a man called Gregg Braden. LIKE DAMN! I bought his book, The spontaneous healing of belief! Must read.
This man, like D. Chopra, caters more to the left brainers: those of us who depend on 5 senses, proof, facts, data, etc etc etc…
His website: http://www.greggbraden.com/
Check it out.
All of these folks are saying the same thing but in just different way. After all, there are different people in this world and each has its preference on how to learn. I’m a right brainer, and i try to balance it with the left brain stuff. But the latter is not necessary for me, cause i intuitively know. And oh, there’s a scientific explanation to intuition too before some start yellping:
http://www.scienceofrealitycreation.com/The_Best_Definition_of_Intuition_I_Have_Read_So_Far_-_Part_I.html
Anywho… check this site out it has better left brain details for what Dr. Dyer is saying: http://www.abundance-and-happiness.com/quantum-physics.html
Of course, before another debate starts, if one does… (i’m not debating anyways! and probably will never check this forum again)… there are several other quantumn theorists out there.
The Daili Lama is also one of them. He has done several extensive joint works with leading edge scientists and technologies to give a left brain explanation to meditation.
I need not this explanation, i see the good it has done to those i know who r involved in such practice.
Anyways, for better or worse, Dyer has helped thousands of people! He participated in helping me get over the addiction of smoking and habitual thoughts that are just bothersome… So I have direct knowing that his work is good.
If you are not down with his lingo, just find another person who says the same stuff but in a manner that seems better to you. That’s all. No need to put Dyer down because you have a different taste.
Lol!
Peace out,
Ish
Jodee- Thank You for introducing me to the work of John Taylor Gatto. I just read his acceptance of the teacher of the year award entitled “Why Schools Don’t Educate” His 9 symptoms of children in the American public school system are dead on. Family and experience are to be given the utmost importance.
“Extra money and extra people put into this sick institution will only make it sicker.” This is obvious, but always seems to be the answer to our elected officials.
You’re welcome, Andrew. What I see as I read his book are somewhat unnerving parallels in most churches and religions. Obviously, these are successful techniques, or they continue to be used.
*wouldn’t continue to be used.
What Ish failed to discern is that without compulsory age-segregated classroom-based schooling of the masses, and the inevitable vast numbers of broken minds and spirits which that system produces, Dr. Wayne Dyer would not have an audience big enough to support a house in Florida and a house in Hawai’i. In fact, he would likely be without “Dr.” in front of his name. He’d have to go out and make an honest living.
Can you really see the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Ben Franklin clambering after the likes of Wayne Dyer? Their Deist beliefs aside, independent thinkers have no need for Dyer’s brand of psycho-babble. The Emperor has no clothes and they wouldn’t hesitate to point that out.
Deepak Chopra (well renowned physicist etc)
Ack. Deepak Chopra is not a renowned physicist. On this one I’m pretty damn inflexible, considering I myself am a physicist. He is someone who has looked up the dictionary of physics words and tries to use them in a conversation. But his understanding of physics is tenuous at best, from what I can tell.
A lot of posts about how people should be “non-religious” and make better use of their time, “making the world better” in various ways.
Why should we worry about making the world better?
What are we comparing the world to?
Someplace better?
What place?
“I’ve got nothing, ma,
to live up to.” –B. Dylan, “It’s Alright Ma, I’m Only Bleeding”
What are we trying to “live up” to?
So this opens some door to some discussion.
Maybe we can’t just think or image our way into another dimension, or situation.
But what situation are we comparing our current situation to? How can we even know, that there’s something wrong?
This is the ancient Greek stuff, on which much of the Dyer material, actually is based on.
And it has some merit, as the discussion is endless in Philosophy classes on these very issues.
If there is not some realm of Ideas we draw on, to have some idea how the world “should” be, or be more like, then where do we get the ideals, or goals, of making the world “better”?
OK, “class”: SO– Discuss.
Why do we feel miffed there isn’t more ‘justice” in the world? How do we know what real “justice” is?
Etc.
You’re not going to settle this ancient argument, merely by putting people down!
Best,
MaxS
I’m back for a while.
â€Why should we worry about making the world better?â€
Suffering occurs. A desire to alleviate it for others is a human instinct that stems from empathy, a human-only quality.
â€Why do we feel miffed there isn’t more ‘justice†in the world?†How do we know what real “justice†is?â€
Which “world†are you referring to? There have been 3 under discussion here: natural, anthropogenic, and universal. As an atheist, the idea of “justice†in the natural world makes no sense and so I do not feel “miffed.†I don’t expect equality from random events. The fact that the natural world lacks any evidence of fairness is one of the arguments that it was not designed by any loving, caring deity. It is those who hold that belief who have to answer that contradiction. Typically, though, they do not address that point but either rationalize it or dodge it by saying it is something beyond our understanding. (The new age version of “God works in mysterious waysâ€.) Anything by confront the obvious, which would mean having to accept that your belief of universal design is just not true.
In the human-made world, the basis for feeling “miffed†over injustice is, again, based on the naturally occurring empathy in humans. We have a unique ability to imagine what others may feel. It is from that emotion that the idea of justice arises. It is also a form of self-protection based on the human ability to anticipate.
The measurement for “real†justice is egalitarian efficacy. If it is equally applied—as much as possible because no system is so perfect as to not have exceptions—and the outcomes tend to be equal then it can be said it is “real.†What is so hard to understand about that?
â€You’re not going to settle this ancient argument, merely by putting people down!â€
I don’t think anyone believes they’re creating peace in the Middle East here. It is simply an expression of views and their counter arguments. I think you’re confusing “settling ancient arguments†with attempting to convert one’s worldview. Often it seems someone else has a hard time truly understanding a point, which is completely different than expecting them to change their whole viewpoint. Commenting that one thinks someone else’s view is not factual or based on academic rigor (ie, they don’t dig in an really examine it) is completely valid.
â€i’m not debating anyways! and probably will never check this forum againâ€
This is typical from the Dyer/Chopra camp. They simply cannot tolerate criticism. (Why is that?) It’s sort of like the child who plugs his ears and chants in order to avoid confronting something they don’t want to hear. How can anyone believe in personal growth and have this attitude? And certainly that cannot be a way to truth.
â€This man, like D. Chopra, caters more to the left brainersâ€
Based on what? Most likely, your opinion. But that remark is just laughable anyway you slice it. The science community hardly takes Chopra seriously.
â€Deepak Chopra (well renowned physicist etc)â€
What?? Yet more evidence that these followers don’t really read the material they attempt defend. He never said he was a physicist. He was an M.D. for a short time and let his license expire after the success of his first book. And “renowned??†Again, you’re just going off your own impression not any facts. Renowned among whom?
â€The world is going to heck in a hand basketâ€
I disagree. What is this based on? Obviously not history. How is minimized disease, longer life expectancy, the elimination of slavery (yes, I know there are pockets of it still in the world, but it is no longer institutionally condoned as it once was), extended adolescence (we generally don’t have to support the family at 13 years old, or marry off at 12, unless you live in a Utah or Texas compound—we get to stay kids all the way through college generally!), a plethora of leisure time activities to choose from, and the like. How are things getting worse? The fact that you have free time to express that views via a computer is evidence to the contrary; you are spending personal discretionary time to ponder abstract ideas. But then you think we’re all slaves to Big Macs and Cokes. Hint: people choose these out of preference, not because of some institutionalized brain-washing that you and your co-conspiracy theorists dream up. Do you honestly believe they could have the same results with, say, asparagus using the same marketing? Do you really believe that it can’t be just because Coke tastes good?
I had a discussion with an older Danish woman on a van to the airport. She told me that Coke was not available where she lived until well into WWII, so she was not exposed to it until she was in her twenties. She told me her first Coke drink was one of the most memorable experiences of her life. It was simply the taste. Who would say that about spinach? People like Coke and Big Macs because they appeal to taste. It’s that simple. Your conspiracy theory about this is silly and completely someone’s wacky opinion. (Most likely from another disgruntled misanthrope.)
â€What Ish failed to discern is that without compulsory age-segregated classroom-based schooling of the masses, and the inevitable vast numbers of broken minds and spirits which that system produces, Dr. Wayne Dyer would not have an audience big enough to support a house in Florida and a house in Hawai’i.â€
Broken minds and spirits?? Point to a time before compulsory education where conditions were better. Do you think the uneducated workers of the 19th century were less broken in mind and spirit? So, building railroads it true freedom as compared to, say, computer programming. Okay, you could make a case for some of the evils of capitalism with that example. (But that is where education made vast improvements—it readily countered the bad side of capitalism. It is hardly in bed with it.)
Fine, then rewind before that. Do you believe living among the European tribes in the forests was better? Rape, murder and raiding from neighboring tribes (eg, Huns, Lomards, Vandals, Visagoths, Ostrogoths, etc.) was an everyday occurrence. Or perhaps living the cave is your idea of the height of spiritual attainment. Those ways of living are better how?
But that’s right, you think everything is on a downward slope to hell. Fortunately, history does not support you on this. Your view on schooling is the kind that comes from poor students. If you are motivated to learn, then school is a great experience and nothing can stop you from educating yourself. If you were not a motivated person, why blame the school for your poor attitude? Get over it. You’re reading the drivel of a disgruntled teacher (John Taylor Gatto) who was fired. Just because you found math boring doesn’t mean it is and certainly is no indication that schools are breaking our spirits.
JQP, you’re back! What fun!
First of all, John Taylor Gatto was NOT fired. In fact, he was made Teacher of the Year the very year that he QUIT because his conscience would not allow him to continue his 30+ career. Before you assume that Gatto’s books are drivel, I suggest you actually read them. And take in a little real history, too, while you’re at it, because you sure didn’t get any of THAT in school.
Second of all, just so you understand, I’m using “hell” as a metaphor. And I have plenty to back up my opinion – evidence even. Let’s take GMO’s just for kicks. Turns out that Morgellen’s disease, the symptoms of which are so torturous, people have committed suicide just to get relief, is a GMO. Recombinant DNA is looking to become one of the most horrific plagues known to man in all of history. The fact that people can’t seem to get through to adolescence, let alone old age, without drugs tells me there are a whole lot of sick people out there. They may be living longer, but they’re not living healthier. What you see as a decline in disease, is really just a metamorphosis of going from curable infectious diseases to less curable and incurable degenerative diseases. What you see as longer life is artificially sustained.
Just because there are large numbers of people who would rather be lead around by their tongues and then pay the fine in the form of drugs to treat the damage they’ve done to themselves does not mean life is better. People fall for marketing ploys because most of them have dutifully learned in school NOT to think for themselves, NOT to question the status quo, NOT to question EVERYTHING.
When was it better? The Athenian culture comes to mind. That lasted 500 years as opposed to the Roman Empire or ours which seems to be topping out at around 200. There were slaves then, and they were the only ones forced into structured schooling at an early age. The science of modern schooling is often referred to as “pedagogy.” There’s a good reason for that. The word “pedagogue” is a Latin word referring to a specialized class of slave assigned to walk a student to the schoolmaster. The idea of schooling free men in anything was revolting to the Athenians (who gave us Plato and Aristotle, eg)Forced training was for slaves. Learned discussion was the classroom of free men.
Children were better educated in the times of George Washington and Ben Franklin. These men attended very little structured schooling and in fact, were expected to know how to read and cypher BEFORE entering school. I dare say, our public school system could never produce men the likes of Washington and Franklin.
Prolonging adolescence was intention post Civil War. In fact, the word didn’t even exist before then. The point was to prolong childhood and retard maturity, giving the structured environment more time to form the opinions and thoughts of a growing population that could not be allowed to continue unchecked and uncontrolled.
Slavery has NOT been eradicated, it has only been renamed and re-instituted in a different form. There have been many who conspired, although relatively few compared to the whole population. There have also been those not so conspiracy-mined, but willing to take advantage of the intentionally under-educated, who have done so with great success. The system will never be fixed because it is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
You don’t see all the broken minds and spirits? Then you have not spent much time in the public school system, especially lately. I can’t even count the number of beautiful creative little children who have been drugged into a submissive stupor simply because they couldn’t do what most little kids who get excited about learning what they want to learn can’t do; and that’s sit still in a chair for hours on end – being force-fed information that has no relevance and holds no interest for them. Structured age-segregated schooling is not a natural way for little children to learn. A lot of adults don’t even learn that way. Good for you if that worked for you, but it doesn’t for a very large segment. School is only a great experience for those who are motivated to learn the way they teach, but that’s not the majority.
I’ve seen more than one side of that up close and personal. And yes, I also quit, because try as I might to stir the creativity within each little mind to go and explore and learn, I could not do that to theirs or my satisfaction. All I could do was tease them a bit. I was shackled by a system that refused to allow the freedom to learn until it hurt. Instead, it hurt to learn.
Not only that, I am also the product of public schooling. It has taken me years to overcome 17 years of indoctrination, (I’m counting college); years to develop a yearning for learning. However, I may never overcome the self-doubt that was ingrained from the very beginning and re-enforced from then on. It started with the kindergarten teacher who refused to make a paper outline of me like she did for every other kid in class, because she couldn’t draw my patterned dresses (I had no plain colored ones; my mother was very practical) – who shook me so hard I got a headache – all because I tripped while carrying a container of tempora paint to sink, spilling it on the concrete. (Helloooo – it washes off with a hose!) Sure, I had a few good teachers who inspired me to pursue various interests on my own, but for the most part, the purpose in the end was to train me to be a good compliant worker bee – to get a job, which is not necessarily the same as a livelihood. A job is just another level of slavery.
I suspect you will want proof of the conspiracy of slavery that I have referred to, so I will supply some of it.
Ever heard of Edward Mandell House? This exchange between him and Woodrow Wilson took place somewhere between 1913 and 1921. I suspect this and other related documents are what JFK discovered and was referring to in the last speech he gave (I think at a college) before he was assassinated.
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to resister their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant [aka, maritime or contract law] under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic SLAVES through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government – by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.’ [later changed to Social Security] Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner every American will unknowingly be our SERVANT, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
No conspiracy, huh? Sounds like one to me. And looks like it pretty much happened the way it was planned. Fiat paper currency, direct taxation of the people, (which is specifically prohibited in the US Constitution,) Social Security, etc. Forced public schooling was only a facet of it – a means to that end.
It also seems that you perceive some great benefit from your schooling and that life for you is pretty cushy, or at least satisfactory. You obviously don’t see yourself in slavery. And that is precisely the most important aspect of school curriculum. It’s the slow frog boil principle. You are greatly mistaken, however, if you actually believe that the general populace is more educated now than it was before compulsory schooling was instituted in this country. I am daily appalled at the ignorance and downright stupidity of the “man on the street.” Now, of course, I realize that is by design.
Perhaps you LIKE the well-ordered socialistic society that we have now. Just wait a couple years and we’ll have full fledged fascism. Perhaps you will like that, too. Truth be told, it’s probably necessary, because so many people are used to being slaves they can’t survive without their masters.
Re: the Texas commune – While I would not want to embrace the society of FLDS, and certainly don’t hold to their beliefs or lifestyle, freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions. It is their right. There are disgruntled members of that society, too, but they’re not in it anymore, are they? Problem solved. The government’s persecution of that cult has nothing to do with “underage” sex or marriage. Gypsies have been practicing that for decades in this country and they were never rounded up and detained for it, despite the reports of their disgruntled former members. This is about a growing group of people who won’t stay in the system – who don’t want to be slaves of the state and that is simply intolerable.
The tribal systems you refer to were largely feudalistic. There wasn’t a republic among them. So when I say we are NOT better off, that is only in comparison to what we had in the beginning of this nation, not compared to other oppressive societies.
You come across as one of those people who feels eminantly more qualified to run things than the average person. And who knows – maybe you are, but it is too bad you seem to leave that impression, because it keeps some people from hearing the really intelligent things you have to contribute.
I believe history supports my position when you take into account the ups on the graph. You only mentioned the downs as if there were never any ups. Athens wasn’t bad for freemen, (which most of us think we are.) Self-directed education and intelligent discussion in an age-integrated atmosphere was absolutely considered a necessity for the republic to survive and it did for quite some time because of that. Public office was chosen by lottery among freemen, because of course, every freeman was capable of holding public office. Our original republic was perhaps an improvement on that model, but definitely was written with the expectation that any adult male would be qualified and capable to hold office. In the sense that the citizenry has systematically been dumbed down and our republic substituted for socialized democracy, we are definitely on the downhill slope as far as I’m concerned.
But, that’s just my opinion. Enjoy your slavery while you still can.
“…a human instinct that stems from empathy, a human-only quality…”
By your own standards, you fail at empathy.
Empathy can only be of value to one, if one is trying to alleviate the suffering one perceives or imagines himself to be perceiving.
But then again, why try to alleviate the suffering of another? Odds are, it’s not going to happen to you. What is the motivation, the motive force, to even act on such empathy?
As far as there being no evidence for fairness or justice in the universe, the world, your perceived reality, your suburban neighborhood:
None? Really? No evidence for fairness? At all?
I disagree. There’s a lot to suggest that, in nature, left to itself, little if any suffering occurs.
No evidence for a “god” at all? Maybe. But then you’ve got to explain a lot with one accident after another. Crashing planets, etc.
There’s going to be a lengthy debate on this.
The human-only capacity for empathy, doesn’t explain why it’s acted on.
I haven’t drawn any conclusions on Wayne Dyer– or science. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.
I may not post here anymore.
I don’t believe I’ve made that statement previously.
But I think I’ve gotten the job done in answering your rants. There’s more to DNA than is limited by the laws of time. Repeated lab results show this.
But to say from that, that I think Wayne Dyer is a guru of plenty or something, is a whole lot bigger jump. Certainly there have been charges of fraud raised against some of his alleged sources of inspiration–Sai Baba, Deepak Chopra.
I don’t think he has come out completely for them, but then I haven’t heard all of his lengthy presentations or read most of his books.
Who has time?
But there is one other thing to be said here, anyway, about “frauds”:
if a medium gets a lot of good data, then begins to burn out, it is alleged they are a “fraud” because they begin to use guessing.
The allegation then becomes, that they have “always been” a fraud.
This is similar to your line:
“there is no evidence of fairness in the world.”
Similarly, the fact that metallic spaceships from other solar systems, would probably be too expensive to send here on any regular basis, should not negate the whole idea of any contacts wtih this planet by ET civilizations.
We have barely begun to tap into our own abilities to use communications technologies to obtain data from our own solar system.
Why assume travel technologies are the only means to achieve such contact?
We know we can send and receive information on laser beams, and send and receive 3D images as holograms. And we know particle/waves such as the neutrino exist. And we know these can transcend the speed of light. We are just beginning to understand some of the most fundamental principles underlying key elements of the cosmos and this planet.
There is just a long list of things I could say here. But what’s the point? You don’t have an open mind. You don’t take in new data. You have staked some personal macho image on a specific position.
Good bye.
†What is the motivation, the motive force, to even act on such empathy?â€
I spend hundreds of hours every year volunteering to charity. In fact, I just returned from Vietnam after over a month and half of volunteer work for a charity delivering food. I do indeed live up to my words. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
â€As far as there being no evidence for fairness or justice in the universe, the world, your perceived reality, your suburban neighborhoodâ€
I was specific in that that was about the natural world. And I made a clear distinction on my position regarding the human-made world. Where is there fairness built into nature? Is it fair to the mouse that it is hunted and ripped apart by cats? Is it fair to the seals that they are often torn in half by sharks and left to die on the rocks? (This usually happens when they’re trying to escape from the waters.) Is disease fair? The natural world is violent and has no signs of the human concept of “fairness.” Things eventually do evolve into a balanced state in the natural world, but that is not the same as “fairness” in the sense of treating others with empathy. We do not see animals attempting to alleviate the suffering of other animals simply for the sake of helping. (And do not confuse that with self-protection. And, yes, I know among some developed primates there has been known cases of empathy. But that is largely an exception and only with animals closer to humans in brain development. Those exceptions are not representative of nature as a whole.)
â€There’s a lot to suggest that, in nature, left to itself, little if any suffering occurs.â€
What?? Vesuvius 79 A.D. and the destruction of Pompey; Hurricane Katrina; the earthquake in China; the cyclone in Myanmar; Malaria, typhoid, cholera, guinea worms, bubonic plague, are not natural suffering? Are you kidding me? Even Dyer and his ilk speak to the suffering in the world and readily admit it existing in the natural world. Do you realize how much water is undrinkable in Africa, Indonesia, Paupua, and other undeveloped parts of the world?
â€I don’t think he has come out completely for them, but then I haven’t heard all of his lengthy presentations or read most of his books. Who has time?â€
I do. I’m long retired, pretty well off (I had a run of good luck during the tech bubble), and devote most of my time to charity and reading (and now this blog). I pretty much read anything I can get my hands on.
But all one has to do is read the inside jacket of any Chopra book to know he was an M.D. and not a physicist. (In fact, I think this ne’er-do-well was trying to say “physician†not “physicist.â€) These defenders do not show any evidence of making it through even one of the books the argue in favor of. Even when I was busy with a career I read hundreds of books a year. But if you’re going to defend it, you must at least be familiar with it. I strongly believe the followers of Dyer and Chopra have underdeveloped critical evaluation skills mostly go off first impressions. Mostly because they will admit they don’t prefer to examine things too closely, which I think includes their own belief system.
 Similarly, the fact that metallic spaceships from other solar systems, would probably be too expensive to send here on any regular basis…â€
You clearly have little background in science. Those are not the hurdles of long distance travel. (Expensive?? What is the alien currency rate lately?)
One other point, Maxs: I have argued here, and throughout my adult life, of the importance of action over “good thoughts.†It’s not that I believe good thoughts are not helpful in any way (I do not think that at all), but that the camp that most vociferously advocates positive thinking as a solution to problems—the claim, for example, that quantum mechanics is making wishes come true through thought and that suffering can be mitigated through it—actually does little to truly help anyone else out. I have very much first hand experience with these kind of people and how they operate. I travel a lot (usually I log 10,000s air miles a year) and through the charity organizations I work with I come across these goofy yet well meaning individuals all the time. More often than not, the person cut from the Dyer-Chopra mold puts in the least amount of elbow grease. They tend to be all talk and no action.
Thus, one of my motivations and interest in this blog. Normally, I wouldn’t care too much about them, but I found them really full of shit and realize that some their notions can have unintended dangerous consequences for others who follow these leaders. (Case in point: the fostering of distrust in Westernized medical practices.) When it comes down to actually getting off their bean bag chairs, turning off the black lights, blowing out the incense, and rolling up their sleeves and doing something they fall short. They’re too busy trying to fulfill themselves to really give a damn about anyone else.
Now, the real topic here is the feeble attempt to use science to validate mystical claims. Where do you stand on that? Do you think Dyer and Chopra truly have a solid grasp of highly difficult subjects such as QM enough to be well paid spokespersons on how to apply it to everyday life? Do you think that his audience utilizes critical thinking when he says things like “research at the subatomic quantum level reveals an invisible connection between all particles� Or do you think they get the impression, “gee, that Dr. Dyer understands physics so well as to be able to summarize it so neatly for me� I think the latter. And I think that is just the impression he wants to give. Therefore, he does not live up to the ideal he sells for such a handsome sum.
JQP-
Maxs makes two good points: 1) you don’t come across as very empathetic and 2) you are not very open to new data. You appear to typify the cliche’, “Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.” As a result you project a judgmental attitude.
Maxs asks a good question. If you do not believe in any sort of creator or higher being, then from what source does your empathy come? What is your motivation? Where do you get your sense of justice? Justice is one extension of empathy. I see that in your volunteerism. You consider yourself lucky to have done well and apparently feel the need to give back. But, give back to whom? Those less fortunate aren’t in any way responsible for your good fortune, so how does giving back to them fulfill that sense of justice? I’m in no way criticizing your actions. They do indeed have great merit and I understand your irritation with symbolism over substance in that regard. However, I’m simply trying to point out why Maxs asks that question. I can understand where he is coming from, too, despite his rather disjointed arguments, which you rightly rebuffed.
However, I perceive a bit of hypocrisy when you are critical of Christians for not being willing to closely examine their beliefs, (which you are also correct about,) while at the same time you seem unwilling to closely examine your own. You are just as religious as they are. Only your sacred institutions are different. Theirs is church, yours are all levels of institutional education and Western medicine, neither of which you seem willing to put under the same scrutiny that you expect of the Christian.
Cures for cancer have been around since at least the 1950’s. Dr. Max Gerson in particular, whose great empathy brought him to this country to treat cancer patients, was for his humanitarian efforts, ruthlessly persecuted and died of arsenic poisoning. It is suspected, due to her access and a sudden influx of funds to her account and the source of those funds, that his personal secretary, had been paid off by agents of the Rockefellers, who held patents for chemotherapy. Obviously Dr. Gerson’s safe (“First do no harm.”) and curative methods were in sharp conflict with the financial interests of Rockefeller’s Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, which stood to make untold fortunes off their new and expensive treatments.
The westernized medicine that 3rd world countries are often so resistant to is basically a combination of witchcraft, technology, and greed. The evidence for this is overwhelming. They treat with poisons and toxins that don’t cure. (“Women who are pregnant or could become pregnant should not handle the dust of ——- as this may cause a specific birth defect.”) These poisons are regularly making their way into the water supply through ingestion and elimination and through direct flushing; and in combinations that no physician would ever recommend. How can that possibly be a good thing? Where’s the “justice” in that?
According to W.E. Vine’s expository dictionary, the word SORCERY comes from a Greek word, PHARMAKIA – used as a noun, it “signifies a sorcerer,†one who uses drugs, potions, spells, & enchantments. I will grant you that there are some useful remedies within the practice of witchcraft, but that hardly justifies the exclusion of all other modalities. And this is where your close-mindedness and hypocrisy show the most. You make it sound as though just because 3rd world countries are poor and underdeveloped, their people have accumulated no inherent wisdom; that they are little more than children developmentally – awaiting the rescue of the magnanimous rich westerner.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t extend a helping hand. I am saying that we could do that with more respect for whatever wisdom they possess and with for them as being equal in value to us, simply because they are our fellow human beings. What the World Health Organization has done to the tribes in Africa is criminal. While you may see it as humanitarian, I fail to recognize anything humanitarian about forcibly injecting them with tainted vaccines. Since when are mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde, just to name a few toxins contained in vaccines, of any health benefit whatsoever? As far back as high school science class, they have only been designated as dangerous substances detrimental to health. Yet somehow, they are okay to inject directly into the bloodstream? Entire African tribes have been wiped out following their forced injections by the WHO. It would have been far more humanitarian to provide them with good sanitation or even just leave them the hell alone.
You have set a standard of close examination that you would do well apply to your own beliefs. You obviously have the resources and will to do a lot of good, and that is indeed admirable. However, perhaps you should consider the possibility that it might be channeled in better and more effective ways. As a voracious reader, I’ll wager you’ve not read anything that would challenge your beliefs, let alone give it any serious consideration.
As an atheist, I am guessing you are also an evolutionist. As such, I understand that you MUST believe that overall things are getting better and more advanced, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There’s that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics. What do you do with that? I perceive that you are just as religious and just as hypocritical as the Christians you criticize. This whole discussion reminds me of the last line of poem about blind men examining an elephant to determine what its nature was. Since each one only examined a part of the elephant, each came to a different conclusion. The poem ends this way: “While all were partly in the right, all were in the wrong.”
This reminds me why war,conflict and aggression towards others still exists today.
Is this the best we can do ?
â€This reminds me why war,conflict and aggression towards others still exists today. Is this the best we can do ?â€
1.Do you believe that a lack of competing ideas would end war? Perhaps if the whole world believed as you do then there would be no conflict? (Isn’t that what fascism is all about: not allowing opposing ideas? And if you allow opposing ideas, how can you not have conflict?)
2.Do you not see value in conflict that are restricted to words?
3.What is “better†in your opinion? Never making a conflicting point of view? Or sugar coating until it has no point?
4.What “aggression towards others†is there in here? Do you see any physical threats being made? Or do you think perhaps you personally are reading too much into the debate?
5.Why do you believe there should be no conflict at all when you can clearly witness it in nature?
6.How many wars were started because of opposing views in a blog, anyway?
7.Isn’t the idea of democracy not only tolerating but embracing opposing points of view?
8.If conflicts in ideas are bad, why can’t Wayne Dyer keep his to himself?
9.Isn’t arguing in a blog an improvement over physical blows?
10.Why does argument bother you?
Keep going ….. you’ll work it out .
Garth, are you too timid or uninformed to participate in a spirited intelligent discussion?
I take Garth’s last remark to imply that he’ll stand on the sidelines, secure in his self-assured wisdom of human nature (true of all Dyer disciples, you know), believing that if we work at it long and hard enough we’ll arrive at his position. Don’t you think that’s a bit smug?
Before I respond to you, Jodee, I’d like to toss another one at Garth, who I believe comes from the Dyer camp.
” [Dyer] is but one person who writes and speaks of his individual way of life.”
Are you actually reading the material? He does not simply write about his way of life to share with others. He explains about how the spiritual world is made up of “high frequencies,” that QM teaches us that reality is just a “manifestation” of consciousness, that there is a universal “energy flow” that will provide “abundance” should we tap into it.
That is not just sharing his individual way of life, but an attempt to explain physical laws (okay, metaphysical laws if you will) in the same fashion as a physics professor. There is no way to interpret his message other than he believes he has achived great wisdom and understanding of all things in the universe and has come here (on T.V. to sell them for a tidy profit) to bestow his great gifts upon the world. In many of his forwards he writes that “who am I to teach others about [manifesting | wisdom of the ages | spiritual solution ]” (choose one), but then inevitably ends them with something like that once he removed his self-doubt (i.e., the doubt that he is a great beacon of wisdom) the writing flowed through him from the divine. What smarmy crap on so many levels!
Can he back one of claims on the metaphysical (e.g. high frequencies, energy flow, how about its very existence, etc.)? Not only “no” but explains he doesn’t need to! That is a major cop out and puts him in the league of so many other hucksters like L. Ron Hubbard.
So, I don’t know how you can say his is simply writing about his individual way of life unless you skipped the majority of chapters in all his books. That is, he is not saying “here is how I do things and they may be right for you, too,” but how the laws of the universe work, the truth behind quantum mechanics, that nature of God and how to connect with it, how to be prosperous (presented in a way to sound physicist-like: the “law of attraction”), how to get along with everyone (note of irony here: he retreated to an island to get away from everyone and all 3 of his marriages ended in divorce. Is he really in a position to teach us how to get along with everyone? I don’t think so.), how conventional understanding is a “big lie” (his exact words), and so on.
He his saying loud and clear: though my great research I have discovered the truths of our reality and I wish to sell it to you.
Your statement, Garth, is typical of those who come to the defense of Wayne Dyer: unfamiliar with the material they’re defending. I think that alone speaks loudly of Dyer’s following.
Jodee:
†you don’t come across as very empatheticâ€
Depends on the crowd. True, I have little empathy for those who want to cram their religious beliefs down everyone else’s throats. It is very hard for me to put myself in the shoes of, say, those going out of their way to knock on doors and convert the beliefs of others. So, you’re right. However, I strongly empathize with those who are either down and out or suffering. It can happen to anyone. But those here, in this blog, with computers and time to argue are most likely not down or out or suffering, so I’m not sure why one would expect empathy unless just for opinion. But I attempt to approach opinions with reasoning and not emotion as much as I can.
†you are not very open to new dataâ€
What you have put forth as “data†are largely unsubstantiated opinions of fringe crackpots. Don’t call it data until it is verified by those with strong reputations of being reliable. Marginalized misanthropes don’t count. (I can find those types on the street corner’s of L.A. with “the world is coming to an end!†signs.) Give me some real data backed by real sources.
â€If you do not believe in any sort of creator or higher being, then from what source does your empathy come?â€
Empathy has nothing to do with a higher source whatsoever. It has to do with the mental ability to realize what has happened to another can happen to you and so it is with an understanding that you would want help to. In fact, as I’ve explained before, if one helps another with the belief they are accommodating a “higher source†either in compliance or out of salvation then is it really empathy? A “higher source†has no place in empathy and so your question doesn’t make sense. Empathy is nothing more than understanding the suffering of another.
â€You consider yourself lucky to have done well and apparently feel the need to give back. But, give back to whom? “
Wrong interpretation. I have the time to help others. I’m not “giving back†anything. I would help others even if I had gained nothing, but I would not have the means (time or money) to do so. It is a practical matter not some universal balance I’m trying to achieve.
  I perceive a bit of hypocrisy when you are critical of Christians for not being willing to closely examine their beliefs…â€
Do you think I have not examined my beliefs closely? My beliefs evolved from examination and study. Christian belief cannot come from any sort of critical thinking or critical evaluation at all, so to lump me in with them is unwarranted.
â€The westernized medicine that 3rd world countries are often so resistant to is basically a combination of witchcraft, technology, and greed. The evidence for this is overwhelming.â€
Show me the overwhelming data that westernized medicine is based on witchcraft? (Your etymological point is neither overwelming nor evidence of actual practice, just a history of a root word.) And to focus on “greed†or even technology is to only focus on a small percentage of its efficacy. Once again you set out to exaggerate small bad side of something that is largely good.
â€Entire African tribes have been wiped out following their forced injections by the WHO. “
I’m aware of these claims, but there is little evidence as far as I know. But this is something I’m open to. But show me reliable evidence first, not the opinions of the Noam Chomsky’s of the world.
â€According to W.E. Vine’s expository dictionary, the word SORCERY comes from a Greek word, PHARMAKIA – used as a noun, it “signifies a sorcerer,†one who uses drugs, potions, spells, & enchantments.â€
This is nonsensical and a weak attempt to connect things like modern surgery with voodoo magic. If anything is close to the practices of witchcraft and sorcery it’s homeopathy!
â€I am saying that we could do that with more respect for whatever wisdom they possessâ€
Most opinions do not qualify as wisdom.
â€As a voracious reader, I’ll wager you’ve not read anything that would challenge your beliefs,â€
On the contrary. My library is filled with things I’ve learned are nonesense. I have a number of books on homeopathy; I have Dyer, Chopra, right-leaning books (many) from Ann Coulter (which I’m left-leaning), John McWhorter; I have Noam Chomsky’s books, who I consider a loon (but I have read him many times before coming to that conclusion); I even have books on reincarnation (Jane Roberts—gag me!) and Elizabeth Kubler Ross (double gag-me); and so on. I typically immerse myself in all sides of something before I make a conclusion. (Yes, I even have a copy of Dyanetics.) My collection is filled with embarassing screeds. So, that point is way off.
†I am guessing you are also an evolutionistâ€
This is an area I am admittedly weak in. I don’t have a strong opinion on it yet. I don’t really call myself an evolutionist. But that does not mean lean towards intelligent design either. That view is not based on any evidence whatsoever.
A quick comment on books that I found sound and reasonable and are relevant to the discussions in this blog (note I’ve never brought these books up before and never attempted to cram them down the throats of others). The majority of my books are about history (Toynbee, Thucydides, and the like) or on esoteric subjects like the constitutional nuances of the Dred Scott case.
The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby
Moral Politics by George Lakeoff
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (relevant as it relates to religion)
Oh, I forgot to list: Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert
Any you JQP, I –could– say and believe your statement about me is typical of those who are unfamiliar with those you are criticizing .
I do not know if this is true, however, so I cannot say it is so .
Yes, Dyer is selling what he believes to be his truths . They are –his– truths however …….. not mine , yours or anyone else’s . I sometimes think he is a shmuck , sometimes I find him inspiring …… most of the time I don’t know what to believe about him. Just because I don’t believe some of what he says does not mean it’s all rotten …. just as if I agree with a belief of his it does not mean I’m in his “camp” . I camp alone ..
Buy a little …. a lot ….. or none of what he says . It is none of my business what someone else believes . Yes, I get foolish at times and inject my beliefs on theirs …… and it usually turns out like this .
I believe I have been my own worst enemy , most aggressive towards myself, and at war with myself .
Notice I said “Is this the best –we– can do ?” I believe we all have those tendencies .
Is someone offers a belief that assists me in melting those barriers, is agreeable to my belief system and it sticks in my consciousness , I’m all for it . I never know where that may come from ……maybe Dyer …. maybe a stranger on the street ….. maybe a Looney Tune cartoon for all I know. I don’t have the desire to investigate every other belief of that person, because it has nothing to do with the the belief(s) I do embrace . Everyone has –something– to offer to someone .
“They are –his– truths however…”
So, Garth, you do not believe in objective truth. All of reality is just what you make of it, right?
Then explain gravity? You can deny it all you want, but you’ll still fall if you jump off a building.
Truth by definition is objective–not flexible to viewpoint.
“most aggressive towards myself, and at war with myself . Notice I said “Is this the best –we– can do ?â€
Sorry, but you lost on that point. We’re all warmongers at heart? (?)
“I don’t have the desire to investigate every other belief of that person, because it has nothing to do with the the belief(s) I do embrace .”
If you can’t invest the time, then isn’t it best to withhold an opinion? What is wrong with not having an opinion because you simply do not have enough information at the time and not enough time to acquire it? That is something I don’t get: in the absence of information why is it necessary to hold an opinion?
“Everyone has –something– to offer to someone.”
I have not found that true in my life. So many offer ill- or uninformed opinions based on emotional responses and have never developed a good sense of reason. I prefer to listen to individuals with the most rigorious academic backgrounds because that at least demonstrates an authentic attempt to not mistake visceral reactions for reliable information.
““They are –his– truths however…â€
Another point on this, Garth: when did Dyer ever say–or even imply–his explainations of energy flow and the law of attraction were true for him but not others?
“I sometimes think he is a shmuck, sometimes I find him inspiring…”
In all honesty, what truly concrete thing did he inspire you to do? Mostly I hear these responses from his inspired crowd:
1. …he inspired me to feel better about myself. Again we see that kind of it’s-all-about-me attitude. I wonder how long that actually lasts before they fall into the trap of poor self-image again? I ask that because his suggestion is to realize that “you are God” and just a wonderfully incredible, amazing, (insert other hyperbole here) being designed to do incredibly and wonderful things. I cannot help but think that such an unrealistic self-view eventually comes crashing down at some point. The only way to achieve a sustainable positive self-image is that it must agree with reality. Your self-image comes from the real things you do and real things you experience. If you hold one self-image in your mind, but reality consistently suggests another, reality will always win–unless you’re insane.
2 …he inpired me to be more of a positive contributor in the world. This one gets me because in almost every case I have had someone say that to me it is usually the person who does the least: the least work (they take the easy jobs so they can be more fulfilled), the least volunteer work, and hold the least ambition. What seems to happen here is they are thinking more positive thoughts, but not doing anything really different. But then they are encouraged to believe that just thinking nice thoughts is as good as action. Remember that the next time your 3 year old runs into a busy street.
3. …he inspiried me to improve my lot in life. Funny, but it is rarely those people people who wind up the most prosperous. Now I know Oprah and Ellen, and others, say otherwise, but if you look at their careers they started out with “ego driven ambition” and didn’t adopt this new age nonsense until after they hit it big. So, the new age nonsense had nothing to do with their success–ambition and lots of luck had everything to do with it. Where are all the successful people Dyer is supposed to be churning out? Shouldn’t they be filling the ranks of America’s most wealthy since he has been selling the idea of the prosperity through the law of attraction for over 30 years now? How many of those who have taken Dyer’s advice on how to be prosperous have actually achieved it? But then he offers the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic (which DB so eloquently phrased here) to accommodate the contridiction of those who don’t actually make it via his advice, but just feel so much better about themselves, anyway. And that takes us back to point one again.
Can we truly contribute any -one- thing we do to some -thing- or some -one- ? What about every other experience that had led up to that moment …. where does that fit into the equation ?
After 20+ years of living with eating disorders , I was able to overcome it . Was it Dyer that did it ? Did he offer some magical advice ? Of course not , but he was but one piece in a lifelong puzzle that assisted me in overcoming that self punishment .
Could I write a book about how to cure eating disorders ? Sure, but I would only be writing of my experience , so the value of it to others as an absolute way to help is null . Look at all the “programs” for everything from addictions to wealth ……. a very low success rate . That is not to say they don’t have a place , every experience helps building the puzzle . If I knew everything and how life works from the moment of birth, I would not need to be alive .
War, aggression ….. I’m not referring to the physical, rather that which resides between the ears. Have you experience with that ?
“In the absence of information, why hold an opinion ?” …… Who decides how much, and what kind of information one needs ? Is that not up to the individual ? You have your parameters, I have mine, everyone else theirs . If this is disagreeable to you, okay, but don’t tell me how I should, could or would adjust my parameters of opinion.
I do believe everyone has something to offer someone. Just because someone is ill-informed about something, does not mean they have zero to offer about everything . In your eyes then , desiring of academic confirmation, I have nothing to offer to this discussion because I am not a rigorously educated academic person .
I do not dismiss parts of the whole I sometimes deem undesirable .
“Who decides how much, and what kind of information one needs ?”
You do. But I’m not sure if you got my point exactly. My point is that in the face of no information many feel that must have an opinion anyway. Why? This was really a comment on the fact that there is a certain kind of subtle social pressure to hold opinions on things one has no information on at all. Not having an opinion is not the most socially graceful thing to admit.
I wasn’t suggesting that any level had to be met.
“…but he was but one piece in a lifelong puzzle that assisted me in overcoming that self punishment.”
That’s good to hear. I suggest you give yourself full credit because you own the action, which is what really made it happen.
“…don’t tell me how I should, could or would adjust my parameters of opinion.”
So, suggesting that opinions should be based on supporting information is not good advice? Unqualified opinions based on no knowledge is good practice in your estimation?
“Just because someone is ill-informed about something, does not mean they have zero to offer about everything…”
It means there is a high degree of probability that they are wrong. You have to be able to discern what is truth vs. when someone just doesn’t know what they’re talking about. If someone’s arguments expose they have little understanding of the topic at hand, is it really worth the investment in time?
I know what you’re saying, though, so your point is not lost on me. You’re really suggesting sort of a Gestalt level of learning. I think that approach is questionable at best.
If you have the time, this video expresses a point I’m trying to make about informed opinions. Her point at about 12:50 regarding press coverage of the biblical rapture I think is relevant.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152008/watch2.html
Jodee, what are you trying to convince of, anyway? It is not clear. That Zeitgeist movie was so out there (talk about never citing sources) that it is taken better as science fiction than any fact. (I mean, is there one scientist out there that supports Peter Joseph’s claims? From what I read, the science community thinks he’s a nut. Based on just on his demagogic presentation style alone, I have to agree. He’s just shy of a cropped mustache pounding his fist to shouts of German.)
But I realized you have so many scattered points that are so far out from any mainstream support of any kind that I am not really sure what you’re driving at other than the whole world is a large-scale ruse orchestrated by corporate America. Which implies millions of people all in on the scheme and that only a few–like you–have the ability to see above it all. That is a highly improbable notion.
The following is copied from Dawkins’ book. I think it is very interesting that most people would still be moral without a god when asked so. This is a point that has been brought here, mostly aimed at me, in the context of moral behavior and empathy. So I ask you: Who needs God to act morally?
Equally as interesting is the observation that as society changes what it accepts as moral religon adopts and then reinterprets its biblical writings in order to accommodate that updated understanding. So, rather than religion being the foundation of morality (which is the basis of the questions towards me), religion actually reorients itself in order to stay relevant and, thus, appears to be that foundation.
He asks, “would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?†He argues that very few people would answer “yesâ€, undermining the claim that a God is needed to make us behave morally.
In support of this view, he surveys the history of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society. As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings. Thus, Dawkins states, morality does not originate from the Bible, rather our moral progress informs what part of the Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss.
So, religion’s biblical interpretations are sort of like the politician who tweaks his message over time and then claims, “that’s what I’ve always said!”
By the way, it’s DB’s birthday. He’s integral{15 to 16} (x^2+x)+1 dx today.
JQP – You have responded with all the fervor of a religious zealot. I can see I’ve struck a nerve – one you don’t care to have exposed. Interestingly enough, both allopathy and Christianity have striking parallels, despite your protestations to the contrary. For purpose of illustration, I’ll use the Roman Catholic Church, since it’s the largest and the mother of all other Christian religions.
Both have a history, old and current, shrouded in mysticism and secrecy. Both have engaged in inhumane torture and genocide; only when Medical institutions do it, it’s call “experimentation.” (The Stanford Prison Experiment, The Monster Study, Project 4.1, MK Ultra; and these are just those done by the US!). So, the poor unfortunates that you help have no wisdom of their own? Only opinions? And wisdom and drugs (I’m guessing here, based on your emotional response,) are what you impart to them?
Both employ special powers or posions. (sacraments / drugs) Both use Latin, NOT the language of the common people, as well as special garb to elevate the position and authority of it’s priests/practioners and maintain an atmosphere of mystery and power over the “higher” elements. Both revile and persecute their detractors, especially those within their own ranks who deviate from the status quo. (excommunication / defamation) Both are controlled by the greedy golem of corporatization. For the most part, both only adopt new methodologies or approaches when those things offer the potential for huge profits. (Why else would the medical status quo be taking any interest in the limited experimentations of a radio engineer done over the last few years in his wife’s kitchen and not even consider the lifelong research of a PhD with over 30 years invested in the study of the relationship of parasites to disease and electrical resonance? Oh yeah! They can charge big bucks for those nano particles the engineer came up with, plus treatments for the potential possible side effects whereas a simple adjustable electric resonator that one can purchase or make for less than a few hundred dollars and use themselves has no long term revenue potential.)
And last but not least, both are controlled by the political agenda to contain and control the masses. Your priest/doctor, someone you barely know personally in most cases, is your appointed confidant. Both employ fear as one means to control your behavior, however unwittingly: “You could go to hell for that.” “Ask your doctor if you are healthy enough to have sex. Tell your doctor before having any surgery. Ask your doctor if —– is right for you.” We hand our souls over to priests and pastors, and we hand our bodies (health) over to doctors. Where’s the personal responsibility? Where’s the objectivity? Where’s the critical thinking in any of that?
Other than the ridiculous amount of space it would take to document for you over 30 years of study and research that I’ve done on my own, why should I spoon feed you information (data) that is readily available to anyone who will put forth the effort to search it out? Do you have any of the authored works of any of those listed below? If so, did you read them with an open mind ready for critical thinking and analysis or a mind already made up as though you are personally vested in the pharmaceutical industry?
Hulda Clark, Ph.D., N.D.
Henry Bieler, M.D.
Paavo Airola N.D., PhD
Robert Mendlesohn, M.D.
Max Gerson, M.D.
Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (Nobel Prize winner)
Weston A. Price, DDS
Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D.
Joel Fuhrman, M.D.
Frank Rhodes, Ph.D., President Emeritus, Cornell University (1978-1995)
Robert C. Richardson, Ph.D., Nobel Prize Winner, Professor of Physics and Vice Provost of Research, Cornell University
Neal Barnard, M.D., Resident Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine
Dean Ornish, M.D., Founder & President Preventive Medicine Research Institute Clinical Professor of Medicine, UCSF
Junshi Chen, M.D., Ph. D., Senior Research Professor Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Sushma Palmer, Ph.D.
Douglas J. Lisle, Ph.D.
T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.
Maesimund B. Panos, M.D.
Russell L. Blaylock, M.D., 2004 Integrity in Science Award; Associate editor of Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons
This is the short list of medical and scientific professionals – or marginalized misanthropes as you would call them – to which I referred. What’s the matter? They don’t have enough letters after their names? Nobel Prizes are worthless pieces of metal? (Well, okay. I’ll give you that one.) Their service and careers aren’t distinguished enough? No peer reviews? No published papers? Their scientific research has been disproved? No. None of that is true of any of them. What is true is that all of them suggest remedies and health choices that will if not sooner then later make the use of many expensive drugs and expensive and potentially deadly treatments unnecessary. And you think greed is only a small part of the equation? The corporate medical industry and its tentacles make up 1/4 – 1/3 of our economy, depending on whose numbers you use. The industry has a history of dirty dealings, misdeeds, and statistical manipulation, although it’s hard to find evidence of misdeeds that have been disposed of. Plus, whistle-blowers become crackpots as soon as they betray the sacred trust, right?
Still, none of those listed above have all the answers or a magic bullet or are even entirely correct. However, the true critical thinker will extract what is helpful, useful, etc. from whatever the source, if it proves effective, at least some of the time for some people in some circumstances, (which homeopathy and many other alternative modalities have.) Nothing works all the time for everyone. Some things work most of the time for most, most of the time for some, and a few not at all for most.
As a result of the enlightened religion/science you so staunchly defend, we now have nearly an entire population hooked on drugs – prescription drugs. The human body doesn’t differentiate between legal and illegal drugs. All drugs trap plasma proteins and where ever they get trapped is where the side effect will be manifested. Trapped plasma proteins cause pain, disease, and death. That used to be taught in medical schools, but as drug companies became more and more participatory in the funding of those institutions, that sort of instruction faded away. It didn’t change the facts, however, which were never disproved, only relegated to the volumes of dusty archives.
Modern medicine would have us believe that they offer scientifically proven cures, even in light of their own disclaimers. “While you may feel better, your risk NEVER GOES AWAY.” Translation: you will need to take this drug for the rest of your life, which will probably be shortened as a result of our lack of interest in truly finding a cause and cure for your ailment and/or by the side effects of this drug. Yet, by their own admission, only 15% of all conventional medical treatments have been proven safe and effective in practice. That leaves 85% as basically guesswork by trial and error and we are all the guinea pigs. The only logical explanation for the undying loyalty of the masses to an institution with such a low performance rate is nothing short of religious brainwashing.
Christian beliefs also evolve from much in depth examination and study. The only difference is what you study and how closely you examine it. Blind loyalty to a system with only a 15% efficacy rate doesn’t exactly exemplify critical thinking or evaluation. Therefore, lumping you in with other religious people seems very warranted. Largely good? I don’t call 15% “largely good.” But then, perhaps my standards are a bit higher than yours.
Your animosity toward alternatives like homeopathy, for instance, verges on irrationalism. It was developed by Samuel Hahnemann, an M.D., in the 1800’s before the corporatization of health care, because his “sense of duty would not easily allow [him] to treat the unknown pathological state of [his] suffering brethren with these unknown medicines. The thought of becoming in this way a murderer or malefactor towards the life of [his] fellow human beings was most terrible to [him], so terrible and disturbing that [he] wholly gave up [his] practice … and occupied [himself] solely with chemistry and writing.”
Hahnemann LEFT witchcraft and developed homeopathy. Witchcraft employs poisons; homeopathy does not. For all your reading of your books on the subject, you still remain ignorant of how it actually works and why. Your understanding seems little more than that of the woman who tried to kill her husband with homeopathic belladonna, or deadly nightshade. Try as she might, with doses that she thought would have killed a horse, it was an abysmal failure. While he experienced some mild temporary symptoms proving the remedy, he experienced no lasting effects from it, because there was no toxicity.
That’s not a claim you can make about the use of prescription drugs. In fact, drug use tends to lead to more drug use to counteract the side effects of the other drug. All drugs are toxic to some degree. I have a copy of both the PDR and the Medica Materia. The PDR is 4 inches thick. It must accommodate the side effects and cautions for each drug listed. The Materia Medica is much thinner – fewer remedies for roughly the same number of ailments and no need to list any side effects since there aren’t any. Poison vs. immunocatalysts – there’s a world of difference. The use of poisons is well grounded in witchcraft and your casual cleric-like dismissal of the etymology you discount belies your religious belief in that system. Words DO mean something. Names aren’t just assigned for no reason. Traditions don’t just happen out of thin air.
Your reliance only on those with “strong reputations” is hardly a dependable credential. Reputations can be formed easily on nothing but the opinion of someone with enough influence or power to make it or change it, not necessarily based on fact. Just ask any father, who in the midst of an ugly divorce and custody battle has been falsely accused of child molestation. That stigma never goes away. Or go back 150 years when a wife and children were legally considered property of the husband/father. He could beat them to a pulp and still be considered an upstanding member of the community, above reproach and of solid repute. Reputation of any individual is at best, only a backup to confirm the veracity of any scientific or medical body of work.
It seems that you dismiss anything out of hand that you don’t happen to agree with, based on your belief system and opinion – at least on this particular subject. So, it wouldn’t really matter what evidence I laid out for you. When one is firmly entrenched in their paradigm and unwilling to consider another, it is of little consequence how many books of opposing view they read. They are not reading with objectivity, and critical thinking takes a distant back seat. I understand that. I used to be that way, too.
I understand that you can’t empathize with Christians because you’ve never been one. You can’t really understand Ann Coulter’s remark about Jews being imperfected Christians unless you’ve been a Christian and one of particular bent. From her perspective, that remark was neither hateful nor condescending, because from certain Christian viewpoints, the Jew only lacks faith in the Savior that was prophesied in their Torah and fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. It is the one deficiency that will keep them out of heaven; that stands in their way of perfection through the blood of Christ. Do I believe that? Hell, NO! But I completely understand why Ann said what she said and what she really meant by it, however errant she may be.
I asked the source of your empathy from Maxs’ point of view, because I understood why he was asking it. Until you answered me, you didn’t provide a reason that would make sense to him. I certainly don’t begrudge you your religion. But don’t be so quick to condemn someone else’s. That’s where your empathy is lacking. I may not agree with Christians or any other religion for that matter, but I can at least understand where they’re coming from since I was once there. THAT is empathy.
It is apparent that you have been influenced by mass education in a controlled, contrived environment that keeps those that are free thinkers on the outside fringe and shuns them. Deviants are isolated by the slave masses and labeled as nuts and crackpots. You have willingly labeled yourself “left-leaning” and thereby put yourself in a box that you can’t seem to think outside of.
I can empathize with you, too, since I was also educated in a controlled, contrived environment and can understand the influences and programming that have to be overcome to function as a free critical thinker. But to be a truly free critical thinker, you have to be willing to keep the baby when you throw out the bath water. I understand your stereotypical view of anyone who uses alternate medicine, for instance, because a lot of those who do are exactly as you describe: they’d rather just mediate their way to a “better world” than get off their skinny butts and actually do something of substance. But by lumping me in with them, you have done exactly what you falsely accused me of doing to you. I at least had evidence, which you supplied yourself, to back up my claim, albeit, probably not to your satisfaction, since you are stuck in your box of Western Medicine and don’t want to consider any other alternative.
I don’t happen to have nearly the resources you do, including time for this blog, but what I have I try to use well and share what bounty I do have with others. That is the best I can do. I only take the time on this blog because I know there are a lot of people out there with similar views to yours who haven’t really heard from someone with no particular political party or religious leanings. I am neither right nor left, liberal nor conservative. I do believe in absolute truths, however, and that requires that I not have a box, because no one box or group of boxes has all the truth. Just because you can’t put me in a pigeonhole, doesn’t make me a crackpot, unsocial, or a misanthrope.
I can also empathize with you because now I understand about the boxes in men’s heads. You pick at the one thing you think you can rebuff while ignoring the whole picture that it is part of. In church they called that “straining at a gnat.” That used to bother me, but now I understand. I just open too many boxes at a time and then they all touch each other, because in my brain, all the parts are connected. That’s why you think my points are scattered and my assertions “sweeping”. To me, they are all part of the same big picture.
And P.S. There absolutely IS a plethora of evidence for intelligent design, but you probably don’t want to see that because you’re so paranoid that some Christian might try to convert you on your doorstep, you’re reluctant to even consider anything that smacks of what they espouse. What you’re missing is that there is a very important difference between intelligent design and creationism. Intelligent design was actually, as far as I’ve been able to determine, put forth NOT by Christians who are scientists, but by actual scientists who looked at the nature of nature, did the mathematical calculations, and as a result, posed the theory of intelligent design. Creationism differs in that it defines who the intelligent designer is based on Scriptures. Pure ID scientists only acknowledge the possibility of intelligence, not it’s embodiment in any particular form.
Golem is a mythical Hebrew figure that started out inanimate and was given life. Adam is the first example. Eventually, the creature was overcome by uncontrollable greed and avarice and the whole Biblical tale ensues after that. Also note JRR Tolkien’s character, Golem, whose obsession with the ring and the power it bestowed on the wearer transforms him into a slimy naked deformed cave dwelling creature – a creature that had once been a Hobbit. There is a slight deviation from theme there, but the greed point is well made and is why I referred to the incorporated medical industry as a golem.
It is not the only one, however. Our government is one massive corporate golem. Can you not see that in it’s insatiable appetite for control over the masses through over-regulation and never ending taxation? Of course millions of people aren’t “in on it!” That’s just ridiculous. But that doesn’t stop them from being manipulated and used by the Corporation.
Yes, I know. They’ve made movies out of this stuff, but where do you think that idea comes from? Hollywood is one of the most effective purveyors of propaganda that the Corporation has. Media, in modern times, has always played that role. Hitler didn’t force his way into power. The people willingly gave it to him. Were they “in on it?” Hell, no! But they were certainly manipulated and used to accomplish his political agenda.
I suspect, but this is only my opinion, that movies are made about this stuff as a form of reverse psychology. ie. If such a heinous thing were really true, they wouldn’t tell us about it! That or, when you mix a little fiction with truth, people tend to throw out the whole thing – right JQP?
“JQP – You have responded with all the fervor of a religious zealot. I can see I’ve struck a nerve..”
Ha! You’re kidding, right? (Look at your response. Talk about zealotry!)
“…study and research that I’ve done on my own..
Seriously? At what university?
“personally vested in the pharmaceutical industry?”
Nope. Simply logic: life expectancy is at its highest in recorded history. Fewer diseases, lower infant mortality rates, longer life. Where are the consequences of your claim?
“casual cleric-like dismissal of the etymology”
Trying to make a tie with etymology and practice is like me trying to characterize your personally based on the history of your name.
“…since I was also educated in a controlled, contrived environment…”
Speak for yourself. I’ve never been in a religion, a cult and anything of the such.
“I don’t happen to have nearly the resources you do, including time for this blog,”
Thanks, okay. I don’t expect anyone to. It’s just the draw of my circumstances.
“That used to bother me, but now I understand. I just open too many boxes at a time and then they all touch each other, because in my brain, all the parts are connected.”
That makes no sense to me. It sounds like you’re trying to claim that you just get the whole picture and makes you unique. Really? Show some academic depth if you’ve “open too many boxes.”
“IS a plethora of evidence for intelligent design”
Really? Where? You mean like the dead end branches in DNA? Or the billions and billions of empty, lifeless planets? Sounds like a design with an astronomical amount of waste. Not exactly over engineered for efficiency, is it?
b>
“Our government is one massive corporate golem.”
You’ve never been in the management circles of corporate life, have you? Or ran a company? The government is not as much of a friend as you invent. You exaggerate a small truth. The majority of companies do not survive 20 years. Why? Out and out competition. I know. I was on the front lines of that.
Jodee, you come off like the high priestess of conspiracy. I bet you bought canned goods in preparation for Y2K; I bet you think Hitler is still alive and hidden out in South America (perhaps guarded by Elvis); I bet you believe in the guy on the grassy knolls; and I bet you think the U.S. government was behind the 9-11 attack. In the fifties these kind of people would be locked up, but thanks to Reagan, and his cut in budget for mental hospitals, they’re now roaming the web.
Oh, and I forgot, I bet you believe 2012 is the end of the world because of the current state of oil economics. I have heard so many of these doom-and-gloom theories in my life that never have come true that, yes, I’m pretty jaded.
Fact: we live longer and healthier. Death and disease statistics just don’t support your they’re-killing-us-all theory.
But I do like to spar with you. It’s like poking a stick at a mountain lion.
A comment on studying on your own: it’s not about trolling through data. One must have the proper background to interpret the data. This is one of the big problems with all the information on the web today; few have the background to truly interpret what they “study” but most believe they can just “get it” without the right academic training. It’s like people who read the PDR and think they understand it. This is the problem with all the new age spiritualists latching on to the word “quantum.” They think the understand something highly complicated, but in actuality they only have a rudimentary grasp.
I hope that is not you.
JQP, Thanks for the PBS link to the Susan Jacoby interview . I enjoyed it .
In regards to data and interpretation , what percentage of people do you believe have the “right academic training” ? Does this make their beliefs any more or less valuable than those without that “training” ? The answers depend on who is asked . Is the answer of an academic more or less correct than say …. a farmer in rural America ? Does any one really know any more than another ? …… and does it matter ?
There is always someone claiming to know how it all works . How DOES life work ? What are our physical origins ? What is the origin of a thought ? Are they exclusive or as one ? Where did we “come” from to be born ? ….. Where do we “go” in death ? Do we really come and go ? Is it a change in perception ?
Maybe it come downs to beliefs. As a human, my belief system is so complex , no one understands how it works . Many have their theories….. some based on studies. ….. but are studies not based on more beliefs ? Whose beliefs do we believe ? What is the origin of belief ?
I have no answers . In fact …… I don’t “know” much if anything . Does this make me ignorant ……. wise …… foolish or -fill-in-the-blank- ? Maybe the use of words is foolish ….. I do not know .
Somehow though ….. the world works . In all it’s beauty and unsightliness . In all it’s caring and neglect . In all it’s aggression and tranquility . Pollution and cleanliness . For this I am in awe .
Thanks, Garth.
â€In regards to data and interpretation , what percentage of people do you believe have the “right academic training†? Does this make their beliefs any more or less valuable than those without that “training†? “
Well, let me make a distinction on the opinions I’ve been putting forth here. I used “academic training†in response to the claim of “study.†That is, there is a difference between trolling through data and having a background in interpreting the data. But I do not use that in the context of developing opinions. Obviously, I don’t think people need degrees to develop opinions. I would never say such a thing. But reporting the results of a “study†is another matter. My only point about opinions is that some seem reluctant to simply say they have not come to a conclusion yet (or they leap to one without considering its basis). Again, it’s a social thing because it is unpleasant for anyone to say they’re not well-read on a topic. I think it should be socially acceptable to say, “I don’t know†when one doesn’t feel they have enough information.
Case in point: in this blog a reoccurring contributor, zer0, wanted my opinion on a physics video. I have some physics but no where near enough for any qualified opinion on the merits of perpetual motion claims. His reaction was typical in that he accused me of not having the ability to think for myself. That goes to the heart of my point: he felt that regardless of my background there is no reason I should not have an opinion even though the topic is highly complicated. Some just don’t see that their conclusions may be on flimsy grounds of interpretation and deride others for withholding an opinion. I disagree with that. I think withholding an opinion can be a sign of intellectual maturity.
â€Maybe it come downs to beliefs. As a human, my belief system is so complex , no one understands how it works . “
Does that mean the belief has equal footing with verifiable knowledge? This sort of goes back to my point on conclusions and the desire to draw a conclusion at all costs. Why? That is, there are questions we will probably never have solid answers for. Does that then justify leaping to any conclusion in its absence? I would rather not have a conclusion than either making one up or jumping with the first one that comes along. Realizing that certain questions will never be answered for me is okay. I do not need to replace them with imagination.
â€Somehow though ….. the world works . In all it’s beauty and unsightliness . In all it’s caring and neglect . In all it’s aggression and tranquility . Pollution and cleanliness . For this I am in awe .â€
Well, “works†has a big implication here. It assumes that the contradictions you listed are symbiotic and not independent and discrete. Certainly, new age spiritualism wants us to believe the whole universe is symbiotic and in constant interaction with its parts. But that is not based on scientific understanding but mere speculation (kind of like believing the world is flat because it appears to us that way). I could point to many systems in our world that act independently and do not depend on interactions with other systems. So, I don’t think the view that it is all one big machine with each cog depending on another is an accurate view of the universe (that is just an image the human mind creates, which does not mean it is accurate). Rather, I see the universe as many independent machines most of which do not depend on each other.
Jodee, commerce and government have worked hand-in-hand in America since day one. Functional governments only can be sustained by a thriving economy otherwise chaos pursues.
In what way is your personal freedom impeded by this relationship? What can you not do today that you would otherwise?
Look at the history of governments not based on a strong economy. They are typically what foreign policy wonks call failed states. Can you give me just one example of a successful government that is not backed and has a relationship with a thriving economy?
Anothee Dyer tidbit: I stumbled across this last year and meant to share it with his enlightened following.
From “Eight ways to tap into the power of intention and feel great every day†this is what Dyer says:
â€Become conscious of the foods you eat. Foods high in alkalinity such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, soy, nonyeast breads and virgin olive oil are high-energy foods and will strengthen you, while highly acidic foods such as flour-based cereals, meats, dairy and sugars lower energy and will weaken you. Retreat from low-energy substance. Alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, sugar and virtually all artificial drugs, legal or otherwise, lower your body’s energy level and weaken you. “
More of his common sense served on a cinnamon roll, right? Well, maybe not. Dyer’s claim food energy claim was put to the test. And here are the results:
From: http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/001313.html
________________________________________________
New Age authors like Dr. Dyer talk a lot about “energy”: how to get it, how to keep it, how to keep lower beings from leeching yours away. When talking about “energy”, such authors commonly shift between physics, emotional, and some kind of spiritual implications of the word: as though feeling happy made you more moral, or as though kinetic energy was related to happiness. Even food is involved in managing this “energy”. For example, in “Seven Secrets of a Joyful Life”, Dr. Dyer gives his followers this advice:
Become conscious of the foods you eat. Foods high in alkalinity such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, soy, nonyeast breads and virgin olive oil are high-energy foods and will strengthen you, while highly acidic foods such as flour-based cereals, meats, dairy and sugars lower energy and will weaken you.
Certainly, we’d agree that we’ll be healthier if we eat better foods, or that fruits and vegetables are better for you than sugar. I have no quarrel with that. Instead, look at Dyer’s reasoning and justification: “Acidic” foods take away energy, while “Alkaline” foods increase energy and make you stronger. What should we make of such claims?
First, it’s worth nothing that Dyer is confused about what foods are “alkaline” and what foods are “acidic”. Based on Dyer’s advice, I’ve picked common foods from this gudie (http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/001313.html) and this guide (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/lacf-phs.html) to food acidity, and sorted them as Dr. Dyer describes. Note that lower pH numbers are MORE acidic. (For simplicity, where a range was given I used the median value. Also, since I couldn’t find “flour-based cereals”, I included pure sugar and flour.)
Table 1: Dr. Dyer’s
“Alkaline” Foods
Food pH
Asparagus 5.0
Bananas 3.8
Beans 6.0
Blueberries 3.7
Celery 5.8
Crackers 7.8
Grapes 4.0
Green Olives 3.7
Lettuce 5.9
Onions 5.6
Oranges 3.6
Peaches 3.5
Pineapple 4.2
Plums 3.7
Red Apple 3.9
Strawberries 3.2
Tofu 7.2
Average pH 4.7
Table 2: Dr. Dyer’s
“Acidic” Foods
Food pH
Chicken 6.6
Egg 7.5
Fish 6.7
Cheddar Cheese 5.9
Cream 6.5
Flour 6.2
Ground beef 5.7
Ham 6.0
Milk 7.4
Pure sugar 5.5
Roast turkey 6.3
Average pH 6.4
_____________________________________________________________________________
As you can see, Dr. Dyer has it almost exactly backwards: his “low-acid” foods are some of the most acidic foods available, having very low pH values! Conversely, the foods he describes as “acidic” are, in fact, generally much more alkaline!
Once again, a simple reality check on a Dyer claim proves wrong. Why would anyone take health advice from someone who has no idea what he is talking about?
I think it is worth noting the final oberservations from this guy’s check on Dyer’s food advice. Note, it is not that Dyer suggests unhealthy food, but rather says acidic content damages your energy level. But the fact is the healthy food (berries and so forth) have the most acidic content! So, his claim about the relationship of acidic content to “energy” cannot be true.
_______________________________________________
Second, if we were to take his advice seriously, we would conclude pure cane sugar (at pH 5.5) is much healthier than blueberries (pH 3.7) because it is much more alkaline (i.e. has a lower pH number). In truth, as far as I understand, there’s much more to eating healthy than simply looking at “acidity”. Oranges, filled with citiric acid (thus very acidic), are fairly healthy, but saltine crackers or matzah (among the “nonyeast breads” Dyer recommends) are basicly just a big, nutrition-free carbohydrate — even though they are quite alkaline.
Third, how this translates into a moral or spiritual dimension is even more of a mystery: Is a healthy Nazi a more spiritual person than a sick Nun? Were the Jews in concentration camps less moral than their better-fed captors? Does a quest for having positive feelings generally translate into good morals, or is it exactly the reverse?
My point isn’t to mock Dr. Dyer here. As I said at the begining, I’m sure he’s a quite nice person. My point is simply this:
It took me only a few minutes to find the given tables, and look up those values. I have only a few hundred readers, at most. If Dyer, who probably has hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of followers, does so little research before dispensing authoritative-sounding advice on areas we can easily check, then why should we trust his advice on spiritual matters, which we cannot as easily check?
Well JQP, There is acid/alkaline measure of food , then there is the acid/alkaline FORMING measure of food when it is eaten . The difference can be vast .
Limes and lemons , I think 1.9 and 2.3 pH , are called highly acidic , yet they are alkaline forming when ingested . This is because of the abundance of the alkalizing minerals calcium, magnesium,potassium and sodium which are present in fruits and vegetables.
Meats and grains are typically high in phosphorus and sulfur, which are acid forming elements . These elements require calcium , potassium,sodium and ammonium to buffer them before going through the kidneys. So , if you eat too much food with sulfur and phosphorus, you require more of the alkaline elements for digestion. If you eat say, all meat and grain, you’re depleting your stores of these alkaline minerals in your body. The same goes for soda drinkers ….. they consume large amounts of phosphorus , depleting their calcium …. leading to all sorts of problems down the road, like osteoporosis.
Lack of dairy foods is not the cause of low calcium , excess ingesting of alkaline depleting things like acid forming food and prescription drugs likely is .
The mystery of nutrition though, is many different “Ways to eat” …… work for many people . One’s passion is literally another’s poison . There are no absolutes . Giving people advice on what to eat means can help, but it can also hurt . Everyone has to learn and experiment for themselves . Yet, the media is full of advice on what and how to eat . Many simply want to be told what to do ….. the theme of this blog .
While I would not take his nutritional advice, it does not to me make everything Dyer says rotten . If I waited for absolute confirmation in everything I partake in life, I’d likely be living in a library or a looney bin . If I read enough books I would either conclude that life is not to be trusted and contract , or just jump in learn to trust the unknown . Fortunately, the choice is not so black and white.
So , like Dyers spiritual advice, his food advice is up to the reader to believe it or not through their own investigations . One’s passion is another’s poison .
But, Garth, it is yet another example of his sloppy methods and lackadaisical attitude towards facts. The issue is not does this make everything he says rotten, but is it trustworthy on the things we can’t check? You point out that you cannot check every fact yourself: that is because it is the responsibility of the author and publisher to do so! As an author myself, I know what it is to work with a publisher and the procedure of fact checking. (In my case, technical review as well.) The fact that neither Dyer nor his publisher checked those facts is actually pretty astonishing. It is not whether he gets everything right or not, but can we trust him to make sure he is doing his homework when he tells us something. That is his job when he decides to become an advisor to the public.
Knowing this, how can you trust his methods of fact checking?
Additionally, Garth, I know many will think that was a minor point in his book. However, my experience with publishers (especially J. Ranade) is they scrutinize every statement and claim ad infinitum. To put out, say, a 400 page book is an exercise in extreme patience. Typically, every claim regardless of how small is validated and checked with a review board. I do not know how it works with general publishing like Dyer’s, but there really is no excuse for it. However, when we’re talking about Hay House publishing (his latest publisher, after Simon and Schuster dropped him from his contract) they take in everything from angel therapy to mental telepathy with animals. Clearly, they have no scruples about facts. So, I guess it is not surprising.
But, again, if you can’t trust him to do the little job of fact checking how can you possibly trust him spiritual claims? Isn’t it highly probable he just gets things wrong?
JQP good to see your back and still ready to share your intellect.
The following is copied from Dawkins’ book. I think it is very interesting that most people would still be moral without a god when asked so. This is a point that has been brought here, mostly aimed at me, in the context of moral behavior and empathy. So I ask you: Who needs God to act morally?
Thus, Dawkins states, morality does not originate from the Bible, rather our moral progress informs what part of the Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss.
Our “moral progress”? religion actually reorients itself in order to stay relevant and, thus, appears to be that foundation. one word – Amish. They believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and they enter into fellowship with their God every sunday. That is their relevancy. Their way of life is dictated by what they believe God would find favorable. Not based on “moral progress”.
Andrew, it is good to be back. Thank you. Nothing like being on the road to make you miss the necessities: cappuccino, a computer, an mp3 player, and CNN.
I see you and Dave did some major bonding. I guess blogging cannot be said to make strange bed partners.
Actually, citing the Amish is an interesting point. But I’m not sure you’re aware that it actually proves my point: The Amish were formed because of changing Christian morals influenced from the progress of the outside world. It was a reaction to what I cited, so then that is evidence that Christianity was indeed changing its attitude.
But going back to your point that they are an example of unchanging Christianity: Are they really relevant to the modern world? Relevance as I cited meant relevant to general outside progress and changing attitudes, not to itself.
But you can’t ignore the fact that Christianity, believing it holds absolute truth in the interpretation of Jesus’ life and, certainly, the meaning of his death, adjusts its position over time in accordance with outside morals. In fact, your are a perfect example of this. You have said that you do not take a literal interpretation of the old testament, but rather find the gospels to be the center of your faith. That is an evolution of interpretation, is it not? The old testament obviously does not seem relevant in the modern world. You have said you do not believe in a wrathful god of vengeance taking out petty grievances on humanity. Your view is similar to the one that started taking hold during the the 18th century. Authors like Leibniz and Alexander Pope held a similar optimistic view of God. But we do not see this interpretation prevalent in Medieval Christianity—it evolved later along with, interestingly enough, the general economy and improving health conditions.
Life in this world seems projected on the spiritual life, in my opinion. When conditions were harsh, God is general viewed as harsh and vengeful. When a improved economy created better living conditions, the general view of God became more optimistic and gentler. So, you cannot take a sect like the Amish and make it representative of theological interpretations over the centuries. If fact, the Amish was decidedly a backlash to the changing moral attitudes in Christianity. The Mennonites clearly saw Christianity becoming too worldly—corrupted from the outside, in their eyes.
For Jodee and her perpetual insistence that governments are killing us all. If so, why is this true?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200302/ai_n9188669
Between 1800 and 2000, life expectancy at birth rose from about 30 years to a global average of 67 years, and to more than 75 years in favored countries. This dramatic change, called the health transition, fundamentally altered patterns of human survivorship and cause of death. During this transition, the predominant causes of death have shifted from infectious diseases with a short course, to chronic diseases, often with a protracted course. The ranks of people living in their most economically productive years has increased, and the old have become more commonplace everywhere.
In the West, hundreds of years of evolving notions of health and disease, informed by filth and germ theories, the consolidation and professionalization of medical practice, and the practice of inoculation, resulted in declines in mortality before biomedicine (antibiotics, mass immunizations) ever arose as a survival strategy.
_______________________________________________
My wife and I: 60 years old and through annual physicals we keep close track of all our health measurements (this is the real benefit of modern health: knowledge to prevent disease!): our blood pressure both are at the optimal level (both of us around 115/55 on a weekly average–we have a BP machine at home and we average it on Excel), LDL low, HDL high, triglycerides low, etc. We are on no medication—neither is my 72 year old neighbor who participates in regular athletic events with me; or my 80 year old in law; or my 91 year old uncle. And both our general practitioner and cardiologists (that’s 4 doctors because my wife has her own doctor and cardiologist) not one, not one!, in all these years have ever recommended any medication of any kind. So, I do not see any evidence of a dominate corporate effort to push drugs on me. Just the opposite! The recommendations are always about diet and exercise.
Do you believe I would be representative for the health a 60 year old in 1920? Or 1750? How many over-90 year olds do you think there were in the sixteenth century vs. today? How much of a problem do you think the spread of disease and infection was in the sixteenth century vs. today? Where are all the bodies you speak of, Jodee?
Is this what working too long in a quantum lab does to you?
Is this what Dave will look and talk like in 10 years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5mPWmGhfJQ&feature=related
I see you and Dave did some major bonding. I guess blogging cannot be said to make strange bed partners.
It was definetely a low point for me. I need to think about my answers before writing down the first thing that comes to mind.
The Amish were formed because of changing Christian morals influenced from the progress of the outside world.
As Christians we are called to be in this world, but not of this world. Meaning we are not to follow the ways of the “wicked” or the foolish. The Amish believe that they are following the wisest path.
Are they really relevant to the modern world? Relevance as I cited meant relevant to general outside progress and changing attitudes, not to itself.
Even remote tribes in Africa and South America are studied by National Geographic. Of course they are relevant. Especially to our changing attitudes and outside progress. I think cultures could learn from their humility, compassion, and forgiveness.
But you can’t ignore the fact that Christianity, believing it holds absolute truth in the interpretation of Jesus’ life and, certainly, the meaning of his death, adjusts its position over time in accordance with outside morals.
This was a problem way before Jesus entered Mary’s womb. Way back to Moses. God gave us the ten commandments via Moses. The strict legalist’s, the Pharisees, followed these old testament laws and persecuted those that didn’t. They were kind of like those kids in grade school that were always tattling. But Jesus exposes their hypocrisy by healing people on the sacred Sabbath, which broke their tradition. Even though they were keeping their old testament traditions and NOT adjusting their position over time, Jesus was displeased to say the least. He blasts them for their outward pious behavior while neglecting far greater dangers from within.
Christians still battle against pride and intolerance and a religion based on deeds.
You have said that you do not take a literal interpretation of the old testament, but rather find the gospels to be the center of your faith.
Yes I said that even though I am still reading and learning. In fact I just finished reading the book of Judges, Samuel,and Kings. None give the impression of a gentle God. He seems more angry and vengeful. So God must be looked at as a whole. Naturally, I look at myself as a father of 3, not because I think I’m God, but because I experience all of these emotions as I raise my children. I can get angry when they don’t listen or when they talk back to me when I know what is best for them. I can be very gentle or happy when we swim in the pool or just have a good time. So when I think of God, I think he wants what is best for us.
the general economy and improving health conditions.
The economy- I saw a “Christian” station a couple years back promoting this feel good story. It was a minister and his wife from the Detroit area. They tried to buy this home that was obviously out of their price range. They were going on about how they prayed to God to get them in this home. It was about 5 or 600,000 dollars. It was gorgeous, 5 bedroom 4 bathroom 3 car garage. The mortgage broker told the their credit was low, but if he fixed it up for them they could get 2 mortgages for the house. So sure enough they got the house and they praised God for it.
Now they are probably blaming satan for ensnaring them in this sub-prime meltdown, because the house has been foreclosed on.
So, Andrew, what do you think of how religion played out in this election cycle so far?
Recap:
Rev. Wright expresses hate for the American government and accuses them of creating AIDS to kill African-Americans. (Sounds like something Jodee would come up with.) Obama disavows him.
Pastor Hagee calls the Catholics “whores” and says Hitler’s extermination of the Jews was “God’s work.” McCain disavows him.
Rev. Pfleger mocks Clinton and says because she is white see feels entitled and so do “so many other whites.” Obama disavows him.
Pastor Parsley calls Islam “a conspiracy of spiritual evil.” McCain disavows him.
Isn’t it wonderful how religion is playing such a healing role on the world stage? Yes, nuclear capabilities should be in the hands of these people, by all means!
AAHH, yes. Spoken like a true believer. JQP, your evidence is hardly conclusive since out of a population of 300 million+ people, you’re only looking at 5 people. Hardly conclusive evidence, let alone proof. Are they the only people you know? Neither of my 80+ year old parents are on meds, either, but they hardly constitute proof of a healthier population due to Western Medicine, since that paltry percentage is far outweighed by ALL of my husband’s 8 siblings AND his mother, not to mention numerous nieces & nephews ranging in age from 4 – 22 who ARE on meds. Even if I did as you have done and limited my observations to people I know, the stats on those on meds, most of them needlessly, is stagering. Obviously, if your little circle of 5 people represented the majority, pharmaceutical corporations wouldn’t be raking in the profits they are.
I can only assume you mean to imply that your are average, although I have a couple ancestors who would probably out rank you health-wise even in the 1920’s. But, for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that your numbers actually represent a truly healthy profile. Not only do you not represent someone in their 60’s in the 1920’s, you’re not even representative of someone in their 60’s in the 1990’s or 2000’s.
Life expectancy stats generally include anyone not in a casket, which doesn’t take into account the health profiles of the general populace. Your argument is dogmatic. From the link you sited: “…increases in life expectancy have not been universal, and the changing regime of diseases has also meant that the number of years that individuals may spend in sickness has yet to decline in much of the world.” And that would INCLUDE the good ‘ol US of A. The length of life is not as important as the quality of health for the life that’s lived, from my perspective. I’m not necessarily trying to live long as I am trying to live well, and there seems to be a concerted effort by corporations like Monsanto, Glaxo/Smith/Kline, et al., to prevent me and everyone who shares my pursuit, from doing so.
Just for review, let’s look at the definition of “dogma”: “a belief based on religious persuasion NOT scientific fact.” Which only proves my point about your religious belief system called Western Medicine. Have you not heard of “The Central Dogma”? It’s been taught in all the seminaries – I mean med schools – for the last 60 years at least. In a nutshell, it refers to “control by genes”. It has never been proven or scientifically demonstrated, only assumed, believed, and taught, much like the presumptive belief in the physical existence of Jesus. In fact, “the Central Dogma” was actually DISproven about 20 years ago, by the discovery of epi-genetic control. But that didn’t change what was taught and in fact, still believed by the majority of followers. Epi-genetic control is only just now beginning to reach public attention, but for the last 20 years and even to this day, research grants are still being awarded, and medical and health decisions, are still being made based on the completely false dogmatic assumption of control by genes.
Garth has the acid/alkaline thing correct, as does Dyer. One of the few things he got right – only because he had the good fortune of stumbling across something that was actually true. He didn’t come up with that himself, though. Among bio-nutritionists, it’s common knowledge – something you, JQP, are obviously not well versed in. Dyer has just done what he always does – repeat and/or essentially plagiarize, and/or “tweak” the work and writings of others be they philosophers, scientists, etc., be they sound in their research or not.
The fact is, your body’s pH is an essential ingredient for a truly healthy profile; more important than your LDL or HDL levels. Your numbers are only mildly impressive to me, since they are nearly identical to those of one of my best friends who dropped dead last year in her early 50’s (needless to say, VERY unexpectedly,) from what was initially thought to be a heart attack and was later amended to acidosis. She was jogging at the time and fully hydrated as far as the coroner could tell. The heart attack was only secondary to the acidosis, since the heart MUST have calcium to function properly.
I could go on. I could refer you to a whole library of “reputable” scientific data, but why should I bother? You are as stubbornly and dogmatically grounded in your religion as Andrew is in his. And really, so what? I don’t care about that. If that’s your religion of choice, get after it. Just don’t be so darned hypocritical when you needle someone else about their religion. You’re just as blindly subjective in the examination of yours as they are in theirs. It doesn’t matter how much you study if you can’t study with an open mind.
Hey…this blog’s second birthday in next week! Wow.
Hey…this blog’s second birthday is next week! Wow.
Hey…two years and I still can’t type! Wow.
Religion dressed up in authority soaked in pseudoscience. That was just one of the statements that started this blog almost two years ago. Now is is apparent that it applies to more than just Dr. Dyer’s ramblings.
The doctrine of “conventional wisdom” you seem to hold in some degree of esteem, is seldom wise, let alone in the best interests of the general public. How can it be when its “science” is driven by a political agenda of power and wealth, and the elimination of 65 – 90 percent of the world’s population through starvation, disease, and calamity? (UN resolution 2000 – look it up!) Our government is out to kill us? Gee. Sure looks that way to me. Read on if you dare.
This is the established state religion that masquerades as science and dresses in authority: “On June 10, 2008, the New York Legislature passed “Fast Track” legislation making all vaccinations recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) mandatory for EVERY child in New York.
* No exemptions of conscience or religion
* No objections by parents of already vaccine-damaged (or other vulnerable) kids. (Those medically contraindicated by the manufacturers’ OWN LITERATURE!)
* No private school exemptions.
None. Gone. Vaporized by vote.
* Forget Parental Rights
* Forget Civil Rights
* Forget Exemptions.
Under the current ACIP vaccination schedule, children between the ages of birth and 7 years receive 47 doses of vaccines. By age 18 the total is 67 vaccine doses for boys and 70 for girls (including the unproven and dangerous HPV vaccines). No science shows this is either safe or effective. Quite a lot of science shows that it is neither.”
JQP, your religion is about to wreak havoc on the health of all of New York’s children, despite SCIENTIFIC evidence, and bludgeon the illusion of all parents’ rights, despite the Constitution. Yet, this is part of the gospel you preach. So, I have to ask you, what makes you any different from the missionaries you so roundly criticize and resent? How is someone coming to your door to “evangelize” you any worse than being forced to inject toxins into your children (and yourself) virtually at the point of a gun? (That happened in New Jersey this past November. Look it up.) I’d say the latter is far worse. You can always close your door to the “evangelist” trying to convert you. It’s much more difficult to avoid armed police officers standing at the ready should you resist, and then to get rid of the injected toxins that were forced into the body of your child when you dared not. As you point the finger, there are three pointing back at yourself. You have not even begun to study or examine.
Speaking of science and nutrition, I find great irony in the pitiful things hospitals feed those that are there to heal . The medical community in general still doesn’t get it about the help ….. and harm food can do for a person . Yes, I see bits in print and tv about doctors who are aware of this , but the very hospitals they practice in are serving soda pop, white bread and cans of Ensure to surgery patients . It’s no different than it was since I first saw a “nutritionist” at age 10 at the revered Mayo Clinic . There are a few exceptions of course ….. but very few .
Speaking of homeopathy, I find it sadly amusing the ignorance spread about it . I use homeopathy every day , from chronic to acute conditions . It’s not the only way to heal , but it is one valuable way . Allopathic medicine has failed me in many ways , but surgery helped when I needed it once … so it has it’s place .
Look at the way drugs are promoted in media . They are now calling common ailments diseases ….. like heartburn . Heartburn is common and mostly caused by a lack of acid in the stomach. Often a sip of raw vinegar will alleviate it , but if you listen to the doctors … you need a drug for it . The real problem is never addressed , so the patient is convinced they need the drug indefinitely .
The same with the vaccines . The idea of them sounds “nice”, but in practice they put in so many things unrelated to the vaccine that it makes it a frankencocktail at best . Mercury is big one often included ….. that’s all we need …. more mercury in our systems . Hardly . Requiring them to newborn children is very alarming ….. along with the guilt trip they try to put on you if you refuse in good conscience . They even do it with pets . “Has Fluffy had his/her shots up to date?” …… then …. “the look” ….. the look like if you don’t go along with the program you’re endangering Fluffy and the world at large .
So, it looks like Dyer has nothing on the medical community for spreading misinformation . Buyer beware . Yet, not everyone has the time or desire to research everything they do , consume and believe .
We all believe something for our own reasons.
Looking within though …… who am I to tell anyone else how to think , believe or act ? What special knowledge do I have that they do not ? Do I know how , what when and where the universe started ? If I have not a clue of the origins of anything …… it comes down to belief. Belief in a mystery . Some want to sell their beliefs ….. many do not . Is one right, the other wrong ? It’s up to your belief .
I’m astonished at lack of any knowledge of history. It seems no one here does much worldly travel either. No one says these kinds of things about vaccines who travels to remote parts of the world. Only people who stay in their homes and eschew any reading of history do.
Do you think the sudden drop of infection disease in the developed nations in the last half of the 20th century was an accident? Why do you think you have such an extremely low risk of things like typhoid? Why do you think you don’t have lice right now (which is extremely common throughout history)? Why do you think you don’t worry about yellow fever or diphtheria or cholera? Why do you think your gums are not bleeding and you’re not suffering constant toothaches (also common throughout history)? Do you have any concept how vaccines and fluoride improved your chances that you would not get any of these things? Do you understand how well off your health and the prospects of living a long life are compared to your historical counterpart? My goodness, gain some perspective of how good you have it.
If you want to know what the world would be like if we followed Wayne Dyer, just study up on European history around 1348. That is the world without modern medicine. Or, better yet, visit Irian Jaya or Congo without vaccinations and see how long you make it before succumbing to malaria or typhoid. You’re just projecting some fantasy conditions about the natural world that have never existed still don’t. You need to visit the people who live in uncivilized parts of the world, witness first hand their disease and suffering and you will change your mind about natural conditions. The problem is you’re projecting your comfortable civilized life onto nature.
â€Dyer has nothing on the medical community for spreading misinformation…â€
Dyer has no training in any science, has absolutely no medical background, and so has no business writing and attempting to sound like an authority.
Now, mind you, your points about the marketing of drugs is truly annoying, I agree. But by and large death and disease statistics per capita are very good (and improving!) so it is not as bad as you convince yourself.
If we all listened to Dyer, we’d be turning the clocks back about 1,000 years, allow the return of infectious and communicable diseases in the world, and watch mortality rates climb back to where they once were. But he does not see that because he does not use critical thinking and reason when dreaming up his new age nonsense. He bases it on “how he feels.” Refusing to challenge ideas is a sure way to be wrong.
A personal anecdote comparing my lifestyle to Wayne Dyer’s. I think it is fair as we’re both close in age.
Dyer who does not like to visit doctors had a heart attack a couple of years ago. I see a cardiologist every year and get a stress echo test (which is a sonogram video of my heart under stress) and my risk of a heart attack is virtually nil. I know exactly my health measurements. Dyer goes by his feelings and look what happens to him (and that Ram Dass who is already in a wheelchair from a stroke). He refused to believe conventional reason and it now has cut his life a little shorter.
The thing about advanced aging is I get to see all the new age crap that people tried to convince me of, especially in the sixties, had little pay off in the end. Most of them (ones I personally knew in high school) have all died off early. Heart attacks in their fifties, strokes, and so on. All their positive thinking and distrust of Western medical practices did them little good. And yet here I stand in almost perfect health: at 60 I compete in atheltics, I weight train, I play basketball, I play softball, and so on. (I guarantee you Wayne Dyer could not keep up with me.) But most importantly, I see a doctor regularly and I know all my stats so I know exactly how much to regulate my diet and exercise. It’s just common sense.
What separates the successful (however you want to define it, financial, health, relationships, you name it) is not what they know, but what they’re willing to do. Most everyone knows what to do, but they convince themselves otherwise and end up not doing the obvious.
I know of so many who lived the new age life that Dyer writes about (yoga, centering and focus, transcendental meditation, positive thinking, etc. rather than going to the doctor) who never made it to 60 years of age. That is the sad truth that I live with. To be absolutely honest with you, back in high school I would not have guessed that these new age types I knew would die off so early and as they wound up doing. It is mostly the conventional mainstream people that many of you seem to belittle who end up living healthier and longer in the end. Not the spiritualists.
Successful ….. as you said ….. there are many ways to define it …. as many ways as there are people . Is living in health a success ? A long life ? What about all that cannot be measured ? What about say ….. love . Can love be measured ?
Just what is life about anyways ?
Healthy people who go to the doctor get ill all the time , just because you have not means nothing more than you have not. Do you know Dyer’s complete life history to know when and or if he ever went to a doctor and how he has taken care of himself ?
Duration of life . Why do some die after but a few breaths ….. and some take billions ? Why do apparently healthy people suddenly die ….. and some deemed “terminally ill” heal and continue to live for years with or without medical intervention ? Is anyone privileged to the knowledge of the universe the rest of us are not ? Not that I know of . We appear to be all in the same boat . We each see the boat through our own illusions of what life would , could and should be . We’re all right …. and we’re all wrong . Go figure.
Are those with scholarly skills, keen intellects and wealth any more valued than those who have no academic training , limited intellect and live in poverty ? Can we see a glimpse of a larger picture beyond our ignorant earthly judgments ? In perfect confusion ….. I have no answers .
JQP, you speak of your classmates dying as if they have failed. In our culture , dis-ease and death are often seen as failures ……. something that needs to be conquered . Have we conquered dis-ease and death ? Yet , the medical community leads us to believe that the cure for everything is just around the corner . Just do this, buy this, and you’ll live forever. Hmmm , that sounds familiar . So , Wayne Dyer is not the only one can mislead , intentionally or not .
Are your beliefs superior to theirs …. therefore you have lived longer ?
Is a longer life ultimately more meaningful than a shorter one ? Do we know the purpose of life …. or even a hint of a purpose ? Some claim they do . Some claim they do not. You got me .
No one says these kinds of things about vaccines who travels to remote parts of the world. JQP, you obviously don’t know ALL the world travelers. Let me introduce you to a few: Dr. Rima Laibow, MD, General Bert Stubblebine, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Whitaker, etc….I could go on. They travel regularly world-wide WITHOUT the “benefit” of vaccinations and do quite well. Ironic since my mother and father returned from Germany in 1984 with the strain of hepatitis they were vaccinated for before they left.
Vaccines and fluoride are just two of the sacred elements of the religion of Western Medicine. JQP, your “history” has been fed to you by your religion, just like the RC has fed its history to Christianity. In truth, the diseases that the vaccine preachers claim were wiped out by vaccines, were incidentally already on the decline when the vaccines were introduced and continued to decline in populations that were NOT vaccinated, but that had simply adopted better sanitation practices. They like to leave out that little bit of history, though. It doesn’t fit well with their sacred doctrines.
The fluoride you speak of – would that be the same toxic industrial waste product that when combined with chlorine makes a deadly gas. Oh, but we don’t have to worry about that since there’s no CHLORINE in the water! In fact, fluoride is so toxic by itself, that putting it in the water supply and toothpaste was the only way the industry could come up with to dilute it in the environment. Lucky us. Fluoride has absolutely NOTHING to do with gums that don’t bleed. It clearly hasn’t done much for decay. There’s still plenty of that due primarily to acidic pH and dehydration.
Here’s another pharmaceutical doctrine: NNT (number needed to treat). It describes the number of patients who would need to be treated with a medical therapy in order to prevent one bad outcome. In other words, in order to affect the desired outcome of prevention of a particular deleterious event. An NNT over 50 is considered to be “worse than a lottery ticket.” That’s the standard set by the industry itself.
So, let’s look at one of their potions and see if it measures up to their own standards: Lipitor. The claim is that it reduces the risk of heart attack by 36 percent. (I won’t even bring up the somewhat dubious association of Dr. Jarvik with the ads for this drug.) Sounds pretty good until you look at the fine print and realize how the numbers and stats have been skewed. Lipitor’s actual NNT is 100. This means that 100 people must be treated with Lipitor in order for just one heart attack to be prevented. The other 99 people taking the drug receive no benefit at all, but are at risk for it’s side effects, not to mention it’s cost.
To put this in perspective, the NNT of anti-biotics for treating H.pulori, the underlying cause of stomach ulcers, is 1.1. It knocks out the bacteria in 10 out of 11 cases making it a pretty reliable, cost-effective therapy, albeit not without its own side effects, which can generally be mitigated if one is prepared and informed. At the other end of the spectrum are statins, which as a class have an NNT of 250, 500, or higher depending on the study you look at. What a deal for drug manufacturers! Statins can cost more than $1,000 a year and are almost guaranteed to cause problems, like fatigue, muscle pain and weakness, heart failure, loss of memory, mood problems, suicidal behavior, and neurological issues. These new conditions will of course, generally be treated with even more expensive drugs and/or procedures. It’s just one of the many cash cows for Western Medicine.
Okay, so maybe Lipitor and Statins are an aberration. Let’s try beta blockers. In the study of over 8,300 people, participants were randomly assigned to receive a beta blocker two to four hours before surgery, as well as for 30 days after the procedure, or a placebo.
Compared to those given a placebo, those who received beta blockers were 27 percent less likely to have a heart attack. However, they also had a 33 percent increased risk of dying, and double the risk of stroke.
An estimated 100 million people have major non-cardiac surgery each year, so the finding could have serious consequences. Even if only 10 percent of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery were given beta blockers, that would mean that 800,000 people died unnecessarily in the past decade. (Sources: ABC News May 14, 2008, The Lancet May 13, 2008) Oops. Guess that was another aberration.
So infectious diseases aren’t as prevalent as they were before- so what? Degenerative diseases have eclipsed them times over. An absence of death does not automatically mean health. It could just mean it takes longer to die – more discomfort, more agony, for a longer period of time.
Then there’s the iatrogenic stats. Doctor and hospital error kills more people every year than die from gun shot wounds. The stats very on that depending on who collects them and what criteria they use, but the end result is still the same. Or are those aberrations, too?
I’m waiting for the “mostly good” part. When does that start? Where does that come in? If Western Medicine would stick to what it does best – treating and repairing traumatic injuries and certain life and death infections, then I would agree that it is mostly good. However, cloaked in junk science funded by the very corporations who stand to make huge profits if certain study results can be shown, Western Medicine has become the Golem I referred to in an earlier post. “Health” care costs, (which are really “sickness” costs,) will continue to spiral out of control, because the greed and avarice of the beast is out of control. It’s mostly bad science and definitely bad religion any way you look at it, which as a Western Medicine missionary and dogmatist, you probably won’t really do. (Look at it, that is.)
But, there you go, blindly believing the preaching of the dogmatists of your religion simply because of the empirical evidence you personally observe, and throwing the baby out with the bath-water. (At least that is the impression you have so illustratively given.) Just because a charlatan like Dyer does something doesn’t make it invalid. In fact, you don’t even know whether he actually practices what he preaches. And just because he doesn’t do something doesn’t make that thing valid, either. How very unscientific of you to ignore all the inconvenient evidence – inconvenient to your own religion, that is – so that you can continue to live in your make-believe world where doctors are god and hospitals are temples of sacred rites and miracle healing. I really thought you were smarter than that.
I see little difference, other than modus operandi, between the Inquisition and what’s going on in New York and New Jersey right now.
Global community = global economy = global tyranny. The objectives remain the same as they always have been among tyrants – contain and control the masses, and destroy the dissidents. It’s ramped up a bit more this time around in that destroying large portions of the masses is also a goal, (since we peons are using too much of the world’s resources,) but it’s basically just a scarier version, amplified by globalism and technology, of the same old thing. The only evolution here is progress toward mass destruction. Oh, but that would be more like entropy than evolution, wouldn’t it?
There are diverse players in the struggle for supremacy and against liberty. You have to open a lot of boxes all at once to see how they connect. Even if those connections are somewhat incidental, there will likely be devastating global “unintended consequences” – and not necessarily the ones the “Global Warming” preachers are trying to drum into all our heads.
We can protest all we want, but in the end it’s still advisable to do one’s best to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and make sure that those we love know that we love them (and yes, through our actions as well as words) – enjoying and cherishing every moment we have with them.
Where are we going? And why are we in this hand-basket?
“There are diverse players in the struggle for supremacy and against liberty…but in the end it’s still advisable to do one’s best to prepare for the worst”
Ha ha! LOL!
What makes you different than all the doomsayers for the last few thousand years? It’s probably a good thing you still have those generators and canned goods from Y2K.
You’re too ridiculous to have any reasonable discussion with.
Garth:
“you speak of your classmates dying as if they have failed. In our culture , dis-ease and death are often seen as failures ……. something that needs to be conquered”
No, not exactly. They simply made self-defeating choices. And not “conquered” but prevented; avoided. There are many, many little prevention steps you can take in your life. Why would you not take them? Why would you not want to choose health over disease? To suggest otherwise is not rational. Your natural inclination is to choose what is in your best interest–health. Choosing to do things that you know will cut your life short is symptomatic of being somewhat chronically suicidal.
Why would you not want to maintain your life (which I presume you agree is precious) to the highest level possible?
“So infectious diseases aren’t as prevalent as they were before- so what? Degenerative diseases have eclipsed them times over.”
The point is life expectancy is up and you can’t refute that. If what you’re saying here is true, where are all the deaths? That is the point of steming infectious diseases. People are living longer and with fewer problems! This is called an improvement! “So what??” You’re point is really ridiculous, Jodee. You have to be a loon to believe that overcoming prevalent diseases is not major historical milestone. And, it was science that did it. Not religion. And certainly not some doomsaying cult.
I guess college isn’t for everyone.
Jodee, if Heaven’s Gate was passing out black shoes and kool-aid again, you’d be first in line.
Garth, are you suggesting a passivity towards disease and death?
If you’re a believe in either a spiritual source or God in a more traditional sense, isn’t that violating the very will to live you were given? How is such an attitude healthy?
We’ve got Andrew who once commented that living a few extra years “didn’t really matter”; Jodee who is adamant that the end of civilization is near; and now a suggestion that we be open to dying early in life. I never thought as an atheist I would be the optimistic one.
We’ve got Andrew who once commented that living a few extra years “didn’t really matterâ€;
For everyone here in this world, we are challenged. Be it little or big challenges, we all face them. As a Christian, there is a relief in the back of your mind that the challenges faced will be gone and replaced by something more comforting once death settles in. So I would say that I live in this life, but I’m optimistic about reaching the kingdom of heaven after this life.
What does that say, Andrew, about your God given will to live? Isn’t that a slap in the face to the one you believe gave life to you? Just wondered how you personally reconciled that with God. (And atheists are supposed to be the ones lacking in meaning.)
“As a Christian, there is a relief in the back of your mind that the challenges faced will be gone…”
So, you’re just not up to the challenges your creator gave you. You’ll be relieved when they’re gone. Nice attitude that Christianity fosters. Doesn’t really inspire you to improve the world, I guess. (I thought that was one of the things it was supposed to do–like Mother Teresa.)
“…they always have been among tyrants – contain and control the masses, and destroy the dissidents. It’s ramped up a bit more this time around in that destroying large portions of the masses…”
Are you serious? If so, somewhere there’s a straight jacket with your name on it. I suggest you get a fitting soon before you hurt someone.
Happy second birthday, everyone.
Fascinating microcosm of human society, this. Two years and not one opinion has been relinquished, not one mind has been changed.
True, Gary. Kind of a microcosm, yes. But discussion is not necessarily about changing minds. In fact, believing so is a little naive. The idea that deep opinions change with hard logic is a well known fallacy by any entrepreneur or business person. If one wants to persuade someone else they start on agreeable ground and slowly move the conversation in soft ways. That is different than just expressing opinions and laying out facts. If anyone believes they can change minds by simply stating their opinions and supporting facts, then they’re not schooled in the art of debate or persuasion.
Having a forum to express worldviews is about the conversation, not about getting people on board with an idea. It’s more like cocktail party talk than academic debate.
But, Gary, I do think you bring up an interesting point about persuasion. In some of the scientific blogs linked to by Dr. Bacon’s, I read some recent complaints from the obviously high IQ crowd about people getting promoted past them even though the writers were far more intellectually adept. A whole book was written on this topic some years back called Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. You’ve probably heard of it.
It’s main point was IQ is not the best predictor of success, but rather those who engage others on an emotional level are the ones who rise (which is changing minds to your way of thinking, essentially). Basically, those who are persuasive. The problem with engineers and scientists (and I have worked with many over the years, so I can personally attest) is they believe that by simply putting forth hard logic that others will—should–just change their minds. They’re logic driven and project this on others. This is a misunderstanding of how most people operate. First, people change their minds not by facts or hard logic alone, but by a personal decision based what they believe is aligned with their wisdom, which arises partly from emotion.
Wisdom itself is interesting. While most will readily admit they don’t have the highest IQ, almost everyone believes they possess wisdom of some sort. Whether its based in their values or even faith, we each believe that we make the right decisions for ourselves regardless of facts. For example, the faithful are essentially saying, “I may not be backed by logic and evidence, but I do believe I am wise in my choice on religion practice and that will prove out in the end.†Everybody believes they possess wisdom. Wisdom has a strong emotional component. Therefore, that is what one has to appeal to.
So, the art of changing minds is not about intellect, although that can play a major role. Changing minds is based on fully understanding the other’s emotional base and shaping your language in way that says, “I understand you.†Once someone believes you get them, then it is a matter of phrasing things in a way that dove tails into their framework of what is “wise.†It’s what all politicians do all the time. Anyone who thinks they are immune to behaving politically with others is fooling themselves. All people respond at an emotional level to one degree or another, whether they want to admit it or not. Knowing how to play into someone’s emotions is the trick to changing their minds. It’s rarely about reasoned arguments.
I like this life. I don’t want or need anything beyond it and the fact that IT WILL END SOME TIME IS RELIEVING, not fearful. The last thing I want is to go on forever.
This is what you said back in January and this is what you just recently posted:
Nice attitude that Christianity fosters. Doesn’t really inspire you to improve the world, I guess.
You’re 2 statements contradict each other.
And actually it totally inspires me to change the world for the better. I understand that it is a sick and dying world. And it is very important for people to turn away from the toxins of this world.
So, you’re just not up to the challenges your creator gave you.
I actually welcome the challenges. Even though they can be difficult and there are times where they can seem overwhelming, I pray and realize that the challenges I face are their not to trip me up, but to make me grow. Like a muscle tearing to become stronger.
Andrew, you pulled my statement out of its context. That was a response to immortality–the idea of forever. People who do not have training with science or numbers in their daily lives I do not think really grasp concepts relating to large numbers. Existing for trillions (or more) of years, for example, I don’t think some really get the magnitude of those large numbers. In fact, I know many who do not even know what something like an octillion is–which is a insignificant part of infinity.
That’s what I was responding to when I wrote that. Summary: I want to live as long as I can, keep the quality of my life, but that does not include immortality.
But you’ve also made it clear that your inspiration to improve the world is tied to you getting into the “kingdom of Heaven.” There’s a pay off for you. Is that really doing it for the right reasons?
A Christian believes that the only way to enter the kingdom of heaven is through the shed blood of Christ. This is why we are called Christians. No amount of good works will get us there.
Our inspiration to serve others and improve the world comes from our empathetic nature.
“It has to do with the mental ability to realize what has happened to another can happen to you and so it is with an understanding that you would want help to.”
My attitude toward life, death and dis-ease changes . Healthy attitude ? I don’t know what that is in all honesty . I hear various religious, spiritual and scientific based ideas on what that may be (for them) . They all work(or don’t) …. depending on who you ask .
I spent many years relying on “‘regular” medicine for my physical and emotional health . While it has helped me in some ways …… mostly emergency type situations…… in chronic conditions and emotional health it has not …… at least not in the way it was “supposed” to . I won’t say it was a failure because it led me to search for alternatives , so it did serve a purpose . I learned to by my own health advocate because there was no one that is going care for me as much I care for myself . There are many forms of healing ….. for many different people. They all can succeed , and they all can fail . It’s up to me to decide what to do …. or not .
The funny thing about healing is ….. no one knows how it works . How does a wound heal ? A surgeons cut will often heal ….. but sometimes it does not despite the best of technique and intention . Why does a person heal from a homeopathic remedy, yet for others it does nothing ? Why does Lance Armstrong not only live, but thrive in a sporting career when others with the same dis-ease and treatment perish ? I do not know why.
I too will perish at some point , in health or dis-ease or whatever label is chosen . Maybe in 20 or 30 years ….. maybe next week , this will always be a mystery . Sometimes I have looked forward to it, at times I fear the thought of the unknown . I have been in such turmoil that I welcomed death because I thought the experience too much to deal with and too unpleasant . There is nowhere left to run …. no escape from M-E me and my unpleasant thoughts …… weather real or imagined or deluded . Facing mortality and beliefs has opened me to things normally taken for granted. How about breathing ….. how easy it is to take that profound act for granted ? The ability to see clearly . To think clearly . To taste . To touch . To hear. To smell .. … ….. what is more profound than the smell of spring blooms, the growth of summer, the decay of fall …. or the solemness of cold winters day ?
We all have so much more in common than we do not.
I have read about Dr. Dyer from years ago in health magazines picked up at the health food stores, and I have listened to him speak a few times on PBS. I always had this preconceived idea that these gurus do what they do, only for the money. In other words, they are telling everyone how to succeed, by succeeding off the money they make from others. That is their purpose until I listened to some parts of “Power of Intention.” A young person could never write this. At the end he speaks of a 92 year old woman who said “Happiness is something you decide on ahead of time.”
I think that we ALL get it with age, like Dr. Dyer.
As his works evolve so do we. I listened to some of his words today and finally got it.
â€I think that we ALL get it with age, like Dr. Dyer.â€
This seems somewhat presumptive. It is as if you are saying that you have already accumulated wisdom beyond your years and are here to tell us what we will discover one day; that you already understand an epiphany of sorts that is coming for all us. Really? Are you that sure of yourself?
But then you really did not qualify what you meant by “get it.†I’m assuming it’s “how to obtain inner peace.†However, age seems to to me to breed more opining and resignation than new age spirituality; thus why the stereotype of the curmudgeon exists. You are putting up Wayne Dyer as a representative of most senior citizens. Well, it seems to me that most in Dyer’s age group are nothing like him. How many do you come across in your family who are Dyer-like? If you took a statistical data sample of those over 70: would expect to find more with Dyer-like new age spiritualistic “inner peace†than those in the under 30 group? Based on your comment, you’d say, “yes.†But I seriously doubt that would be the case. My point is anecdotal, but then so is yours. The one advantage I may have is I am a senior citizen and probably know more than you. But that would be presumptive.
Putting up Wayne Dyer as the poster child for anyone or anything positive and/or peaceful is an insult those who are genuinely positive and peaceful—and are truly humble about it and find no value in trumpeting much less selling it to everyone else. The reason is the new age baggage he carries. He is essentially saying that he is one of many leading the path to a Utopian civilization (using his points on his last Ellen visit). I in no way think that kind of positivism is representative of our senior citizens. It may be true that one accrues a resignation (which you may be confusing with “inner peaceâ€) in one’s life, but that is far and away different than the new age babble about “energy fields†and “manifesting†that he sells to a largely untrained audience. (I would like him to sell the same to the MIT faculty. What do you think the mean education level is of those who believe his unsubstantiated claims? Does anyone who posted here is support of Dr. Dyer seem erudite to you? Do you not think that says something—that those with the least developed critical thinking skills buy into his rhetoric the most?)
So, does this mean that McCain “gets it†but Obama is too young to “get it?â€
Oh, just to make sure I didn’t come across the wrong way in my last post, by “probably know more than you” I meant “know more senior citizens than you.” I did not mean to say I have more knowledge or intellect than you.
I think that we ALL get it with age, like Dr. Dyer.
This reminds me of the time when my friend and I were teasing a 16 year old girl and we were 15. She told us to respect our elders.
Age only means years lived not wisdom gained. There are so many examples of people older than me that have not earned my respect and younger people that have.
“Happiness is something you decide on ahead of time.â€
I really need to read this book, but it Sounds like ignorance is bliss. In life we will experience all emotions, not just blissful happiness. It’s natural to become angry or even depressed.
__________________________________________________
I was given a few books for father’s day and one of them is The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
While I will read it with the same skepticism as Dave Bacon would read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, I am still eager to read it when I have time.
I don’t think some really get the magnitude of those large numbers. In fact, I know many who do not even know what something like an octillion is–which is a insignificant part of infinity.
First, you’re right infinty cannot be measured. So, reference to octillion is like referencing my shopping experiences with my mom when I was 8 years old. They seemed to take forever, especially on a nice day when I could be playing with friends. So infinity is beyond our comprehension, no numbers can identify it.
“I read some recent complaints from the obviously high IQ crowd about people getting promoted past them even though the writers were far more intellectually adept. A whole book was written on this topic called Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. You’ve probably heard of it.
It’s main point was IQ is not the best predictor of success, but rather those who engage others on an emotional level are the ones who rise (which is changing minds to your way of thinking, essentially). Basically, those who are persuasive. The problem with engineers and scientists (and I have worked with many over the years, so I can personally attest) is they believe that by simply putting forth hard logic that others will—should–just change their minds.”
JQP – 6/12/2008
So, do you know the difference between an introverted engineer and an extroverted engineer?
An extroverted engineer looks at YOUR shoes when he’s talking.
Just adding a little levity. You did say this was only a cocktail party, right?
Well, Gary, I’m glad to hear it was my shoes they were looking at. (I was worried.)
So, where was God for this boy? Is this evidence that praying does not work? When I point these incidents out, it surprises me how fast Christian defenders turn from a theist to a deist (perhaps fideist) point of view. So, how is that not rationalizing?
Teen from Faith-Healing Family Dies at Home
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5197489&page=1
A lady asked God when she entered heaven,” Why did you let me die in the flood waters when I prayed to you over and over?” God responded ” I sent a helicopter to your aid, but you chose to wait for me. Then I sent a man with a boat and you still chose to stay on the roof of your house and wait for me. Well, now you’re here with me.”
God is not our geni in a lamp, granting our every wish.
Well, JQP, you have truly revealed your deep religious dogmatic beliefs, and perhaps even sexism. You sound like every pastor I ever met. When all else fails, deny what’s in front of your face, ignore the points you can’t refute, and last, but not least, name call and label. “Loon”, “Ridiculous”, “Straight Jacket”? Spoken like a true priest of a religion that’s threatened by truth; not like someone who considers all data or ideas before reaching a conclusion.
You go all the way to Viet Nam to “do good”, while your religion puts 3 out of 4 foster children in the state of Texas on dangerous psychotropic drugs – kids as young as 2; and lobbies against discontinuing this same practice in Florida. While these drugs will have only temporary effects in controlling behavior – something they were never intended to be used for, let alone in children as young as 2 – they will have long term effects as the underdeveloped blood/brain barrier in young children can’t prevent the neuro-toxicity that causes permanent damage.
As I said: life expectancy is a meaningless statistic if it does not include the expectation for reasonably good health. Living longer hooked up to a machine or dependent on drugs is hardly a robust quality of life. These poor children – a significant part of the future of this country – may live longer, but they will certainly not live with “fewer problems” and certainly not fewer problems than they’d have had if the purveyors of your religioun hadn’t caused them brain damage or some other permanent debilitating condition like MS or ALS.
There’s a bill in congress now to ban all home births – making them illegal. It’s sponsored by the AMA, your high priests, and presented with absolutely NO scientific or statistical data to justify it. Why? Because such data doesn’t exist, especially in the harsh light of critical analysis.
Canada is attempting to designate all vitamin supplements (ie. nutrients) as toxins and available by prescription only, making it a criminal offense to obtain them any other way. This would be in compliance with the UN’s Codex Alimentarius, under the jurisdiction of international trade regulations. In other words, comply or we will not rule in your favor in any trade dispute. (Sounds like global tyranny to me.)
However, I suppose you would support these laws, which are clear infringements on personal liberty. That being the case, you no doubt relish the notion of fascist dictatorship, so long as it is in step with your religion.
I suspect it is no accident that “House”, your personal hero, shares the surname of Edward Mandell House, (one of the most influential and evil men this country has ever known,) especially in light of how well educated and informed most Hollywood writers are.
This blog has ceased to be an intelligent exchange of ideas. It is now just the “JQP SHow” and it’s getting boring. Good luck to the rest of you. At this point, you’re barking up the wrong tree if you expected anything else but a one man diatribe, beating a dead horse.
Criticism is not necessarily the same as critical thinking, especially when the critic is incapable of the latter.
JQP, I’m sure you’re relieved to hear it and will have great fun at my expense, but I don’t care. I know I’m smarter than you are, and I don’t have time for this pointless discussion anymore. So, I am so out of here!
It’s amazing to me how upset people get when other people’s opinions/beliefs don’t fit with theirs. I used to teach an Alcohol & Substance Abuse Treatment program and the biggest problem that I had was inability to listen without judging. I used to say to the people there, listen to everything and if it don’t apply, let it fly.
People here would be well served to realize that everyone has a right to their own opinion. You can believe however you want. I also have the right to my own opinion ~ I don’t really understand why it bothers you so much that everyone has their own opinion.
I don’t have to like your opinion, but it’s yours, not mine. It’s your right to be as unhappy in your life as your choose ~ but I’m not going to go there with you.
Let those who believe in Dr. Dyer’s message, believe and those who don’t want to hear it, that’s your choice. Why waste time trying to prove each other wrong? It’s just a waste of time. Live how you chose, just don’t waste your time trying to convince me that you’re right!
Lori
Lori, then I take it expressing opinions that oppose Dyer’s “message” (why is his opinion a “message” but everyone else just holds “opinions?”) is not helpful?
If you believe that someone is ripping people off by selling nonsense would you say nothing? Is the correct action to let it go or speak up and call it for what it is?
â€God is not our geni in a lamp, granting our every wish.â€
Really? Let’s consult the bible on this:
“Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. “
â€Mark 11:24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. “
John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.â€
Looks like your book says otherwise; that prayer is indeed about granting wishes.
Wayne Dyer’s own words: In the first 58 seconds he admits “…seeing ghosts and hearing voices. I’ve had those experiences.”
Then immediately following that admission: “I was a guy who drank every single day for a couple of decades!”
He drinks everyday and hears voices. Coincidence? I think not.
Hear for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnP4QkPCnPc
“JQP, I’m sure you’re relieved to hear it and will have great fun at my expense…”
No, Jodee, I would not do that. Sadly, you express a very unhealthy paranoia about society such that it cannot be considered an intelligent discussion by any stretch of the imagination. On that we agree.
From what I have seen in my lifetime, one person’s passion can be another’s poison .
Is Dyer ripping people off? To some yes, to some no , most do not care. He is free to do as he does, as we are free to consume it or not .
Are you acting as a consumer advocate then?
I grew up in a household where junk food was prevalent . I learned that it was not good for ME , so I stopped consuming it . Is it bad for everyone? That is up to each of us to decide . Some would rather die than give a bag of chips and a soda. I tried to get my family members to stop consuming it, but they resisted the more I tried . I had to let go and let them run their own life . As much as I thought I knew what was best for them, I did not .
Many of us have things about ourselves that others may point out as needing changing . This can be from family, friends, work colleagues,religious persons, authors and even tv programs. How does it work out when you hear you need to this or that for your own good? Do you change? Resist? Consider it?
I could tell you, JQP, that you’re wrong in your beliefs. The only one wrong however, would be me for believing you are wrong. I believe life is much like looking a mirror. What we do, say, and believe is a reflection of ourselves . The next time you think someone is right or wrong, smart or stupid …… go to a mirror and say it to yourself and mean it. Is there a difference between how the praise and the put-downs feel within?
†The only one wrong however, would be me for believing you are wrong.â€
Then you are implying, Garth, that there is no objective truth only subjective belief. And someone else’s “right†is equal to mine.
I disagree. It is not about you telling me or telling anyone else that they’re wrong, it is how you substantiate it. Merely expressing a belief does not make it true and much of the new age spiritualism are childish explanations for a complicated universe. He claims: telekineses, mental telepathy with butterflies, entering his wife’s dream, etc. Do you believe? Do you realize those things can be proven—and have–to not be so?
For example, his anecdote in “Intention†about the butterfly that hung around him. This story shows how ignorant he is of nature. Their wings are extremely delicate scales of tiny overlapping pieces of chitin and a mere touch by humans damages them. So, he tells us he strokes the butterfly’s wings, leaves for a couple of hours and it is still there when he returns “as if to remind me there is something beyond us.†Don’t you think it is most likely that he damaged its wings?? In fact, that is exactly the behavior of a wounded butterfly. But what does he think? It is a metaphysical connection he made with the insect. Come on! That, Garth, can be proven wrong regardless of what he says. Do think any clinical trial of a human communicating with an butterfly will result in the butterfly responding to the human’s thoughts? It just an absurd notion.
I’m not trying to be an consumer advocate, but simply calling out his BS in a public way. This space provides that kind of forum. In fact, it is from that point of view that this whole blog was created from and I was just one who chimed in.
But it is true, Garth, that I think those who dispense advice involving health should be regulated. I think, for example, if Dr. Dyer says that positive thoughts create a healing energy, he should be forced by regluation to back it with lab results. So, that is a form of consumer protection I would support.
But pseudo-science can be harmful. Don’t forget it was through pseudo-science that social Darwinism crept into the general ethos of early 20th century. This became the rationale for believing that dark skinned people were inferior. Yet Charles Darwin never even implied that social behavior modeled itself in anyway like that of natural selection. In fact, he said that survival of the fittest had nothing to do with how people behave with one another. But because of a largely uneducated public, who exuded a child-like reasoning level similar to Dyer’s, found it as a way to validate their bias. Do you think it is an accident that the highest levels of racial hatred occurred (and to some degree remain) in the most uneducated parts of the U.S.? And do you think it is an accident that those very same areas–with the fewest college graduates–are also the hotbeds of fundamental Christianity? I do not. I see it as the cause. I see the lack education and critical thinking as the breeding ground for the most ludicrous of ideas. The unwillingness to challenge or test ideas is exactly how larger problems come to fruition.
Because he claims to operate from purely moral grounds (which I do believe he does), it obviously seems to his follows that by itself makes any of his claims, or their context, unimpeachable; as long as one means well, it doesn’t matter what they say. That is just not the case. Moral claims can be a equally incorrect as immoral ones and, thus, can have equally undesirable consequences.
The larger issue with Dyer is his fan base. They almost universally come off as very unintellectual. I have yet to hear one well spoken individual come to his defense who is not also raking in money making similar claims (like Chopra). Most who defend him, or call in to his radio shows, clearly have little in the way an education. (Just listen to “Tim†on that youtube video I just posted. He is typical of Dyer’s fan base.) If they do, then they have the most undeveloped native speech patterns I’ve ever come across. So, what makes them different than the large swaths of the uneducated in, say, West Virginia? Because they mean well? That’s not good enough. You not only must mean well, but be grounded in correctness.
Regulate his claims? And just who would be doing the regulating? Are you implying a government branch of some kind ….. called the what ….. the thought police ?
The problem with regulating health is it implies absolutes ……. this “thing” will heal “this condition” . Is this really true? Do we truly know the cause of health? The cause of disease? What causes life? What causes death? Do we know enough to have absolute cures for these?
Does our mind and spirit have no affect on our health then? Are we simply biological machines?
Look at the FDA. They are supposed to be our consumer watchdog. The have given their seal of approval to many drugs which have ended up killing and disabling many people. They claim to inspect our food supply, yet many get sick and even die from tainted meat and produce every year. Take saccharin for instance, how can one justify that it still sold in every market and on many restaurant tables across America this day? The FDA says it’s okay to consume. Cigarettes and alcohol? Why are they even available anymore? I’m pretty sure more have died and been disabled from substances like these than from listening to Dyer.
Yes, thoughts can be dangerous too. How about growing up in a household of verbal abuse and neglect …… is that as dangerous as any poison? Is a MD telling a person who has cancer they have no chance for recovery not dangerous, when there are options available outside of “mainstream medicine”?
Thinking in absolutes can be dangerous. Yet……they can also lead to healing. Oh……. the irony 🙂
If every act of healing must be backed up by a scientific test in a lab, then we are in one sorry state of being .
“Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. “ This is Matthew 7:7-8
Jesus explains the true intent in the next verses since he knows we will miss the point.
Matthew 7:9-12 “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good giftsto your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
<i”If every act of healing must be backed up by a scientific test in a lab, then we are in one sorry state of being.”
How so? You’re making the argument that anyone can claim anything and it should not be backed? (Look back on history for those results.)
Because every regulation cannot ensure safety or can be wrong is not an argument against them. If it were, it would be the same as saying laws cannot stop murder so they’re not necessary. The attempt for a safer environment should always be there and always improving.
If Wayne Dyer’s claims of thoughts and healing do not need to be backed, then by equal authority I should be able to market plain tap water labeled with “it cures most forms of cancer!”
So then, Andrew, by your argument you are a deist; you do not believe God intervenes in our lives to help or guide us.
On the other hand, it could be you’re building a rigged outcome argument. That is, most (I would argue everyone) who pray are asking for God to do something. The bible does indeed back this (even accepting your qualifiers here). But if it can be shown that a group who prays over a group who doesn’t show no abnormal results (indicating no intervention), again applying your qualifiers, then you argue that this is not how God intervenes. It is then rigged. Either God intervenes or he does not. Are you arguing that God never intervenes in our lives?
By my story JQP, I attempted to show that God does intervene, however there must be effort on the part of the faithful servant as well.
He gives us the tools that are needed to enter into a relationship with Him. But they are not forced on us. We have to choose to fulfill that relationship.
That’s what I meant about your qualifiers, Andrew. But I wanted to be clear on that before my next point.
Therefore, an experiment can be executed as long as the faithful are good servants. Were the parents of that teen boy (article I posted earlier) not good servants? Are they not good subjects to consider for evidence? If not, why?
I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, Andrew, but I what I predict is you will tell me you cannot know what God’s intentions were with them and that teenager. Therefore, you’re rigging your own system; rationalizing it, actually.
That is to say, if one finds all the conditions that meet your conditions (your qualifier of intervention) of “good servant” and so forth, and yet God does nothing for them, rather than accept it as evidence that God does not intervene, you exercise your escape clause by saying in effect “the Lord works in mysterious ways.” That is, you’ve already drawn a conclusion and regardless of the outcome of any investigation you explain your way out of it.
The point of God being an authoritarian figure who requires “servants” is the dividing point with the new age spiritualists. But don’t they have a point there?
That is, how does it make sense that God would adopt an essentially immoral position of desiring others to bow to his superiority? Where is his Christian virtue of humility?
This is a post from renowned author Sam Harris copied from another blog I frequent. There was a recent Pew poll among atheists and theres been quite a bit of speculation on the web about the results: a good percentage of atheists believe in a god. While some use them to show that even atheists cannot avoid a spiritual tendency, I have to agree with Susan Jacoby, Sam Harris, and others, who point out the obvious: if you claim you are an atheist and then also say you believe in a god, then you cannot be an atheist. Pure and simple. So, what this poll really shows is how undereducated so many are. They really don’t know what “atheist” means. (That goes hand in hand with the observation that religion takes hold best in regions with the least educated.)
“According to a recent Pew survey, 21 percent of atheists in the United States believe in “God or a universal spirit,†and 8 percent are “absolutely certain†that such a Being exists. One wonders if they were also “absolutely certain†they understood the meaning of the term “atheist.†Claiming to be an atheist who believes in God is like claiming to be a happily married bachelor. Rarely does one discover nonsense in such a pristine state. Still this hasn’t stopped many people from concluding that there is a schism in the atheist community.
The inclusion of a “universal spirit†might have muddied things for some of these putative atheists, but this would not account for the 6 percent of them who rejected such a spirit in favor of a “personal God.†Granted, it is not clear what the phrase “personal God†might mean to men and women who have wandered so far from the plain meaning of words, but we can only assume that they believe in a God of the sort that 71% of Americans worship: a deity who can hear earnest and blameless prayers—as for the remission of childhood cancer—and fail to answer them, while granting those of far lesser gravity nearly every day (I rely upon the reader to insert here the most mortifying expression of religious awe ever uttered at the Grammy Awards).”
If God, all powerful and all knowing, created animals and is then responsible for throwing them into a hellish environment of struggle (i.e., the struggle to survive and the resulting violence that ensues over food, water, and mates) is he worthy of worship? Was that a moral thing for him to do?
The point in my last post: When someone at an awards show thanks God–meaning that God somehow maneuvered things such that it helped them achieve the award and is taken as evidence that he is actively involved in helping people–doesn’t it seem ridiculous when you consider all the cases when God does nothing and let’s people die?
The same can be said for those who say grace at the table. They’re giving God credit for being their for them in their daily struggle, but their plight (obtaining food, which most of the burdened is eased because of humans: farmers, distribution warehouses, and grocery stores. And yet they get no credit at the table.) is diminished to pettiness when you consider all children who God lets die of leukemia and live a life of severe autism.
When you think about it, prayer such as grace at the table is a self-centered activity.
That is, how does it make sense that God would adopt an essentially immoral position of desiring others to bow to his superiority? Where is his Christian virtue of humility?
I hardly have time to post lately, but I will be going on vacation again. But most of my time will be eaten up in Mexico. Anyway, humility in a relationship usually signifies a willingness to do whatever it takes to provide for that other person. For me it means I would lay my life down. For my kids, my wife, my extended family and friends. For you, I’m sure it means the same thing. I’m sure you would do anything for your wife. And her the same. But, you also expect her to serve you. I’m not saying the “Leave it to Beaver” style. But for example, you expect her to not have sexual relations with another man. Unless your into sharing her, in which case, I would have to come up with another example. But for right now I’ll stick with this. So therefore you expect to feel superior to everyone else in her eyes. Does that make you immoral?
First off, I have to ask a simple question, What in the heck is wrong with you people? We’re all on the path of life and we each have many different avenues to take. It seems to me that for the most part, a few of you are missing the point in Dr. Dryer’s lectures. If you find what he says helpful by all means then apply it. If not, then move on with your life. We live in such a status driven, go-go world that the only thing that seems to matter is money, power and what the other person thinks of you. If you get right down to it, Dr. Dyer and individuals like him have been helping people for years. Although what they say might not be new, it’s just the fact that someone is saying something different than our polictical leaders who lie to us every chance they get(think Iraq). But still, we place our faith in them because they are going to lead us to the “promised land”. Instead of putting the man down for his belief and the fact that he is willing to share them with us, get off your butt and doing something positive for your fellow man and stop with your crying and moaning about what you think is wrong with his theories. Just for the record, bvfore I even heard of Dr Duer’s Powers of Intention, I applied a lot of the princples behind it to help me go from a street vagabond to the happy and spiritually healthy person that I’m today. I really wish I could have heard him back then when I was living on the streets, sleeping in alley ways and eating out of garbage cans. Perhaps it wouildn’t have been so emotionally painful. In short, please shut your pie-holes and let the rest of us who want benefit from this man’s (and those like him) words of wisdom.
Have a good time in Mexico, Andrew. (Go easy on the Don Julio and remember to use your sunscreen, young man!)
 humility in a relationship usually signifies a willingness to do whatever it takes to provide for that other person…â€
Agreed, but asking others to serve you is not. The idea that Jesus gave up everything for us is a misnomer. 1) he is a god (or a part of God, the religious are never clear on that) and so really gave up nothing, in fact gained if you believe the bible, 2) it is all part of a divine plan anyway. To equate this to, say, a father giving up his life for the well-being of a child is an insult.
Besides, it is the requirement of serving god that is at issue. In your view, humans are inferior beings (“sinnersâ€) forever at the mercy of the almighty. And what it is interesting about your view is that is the way the almighty dictates it—yet you insist he is all loving. That is, you think me, my son, my family all should repent and repay because of an ancient superstition that a woman did something she was asked not to do: eat an apple. Seems like a pretty heavy price to me. Such a requirement is not humility, it is literally dictatorship. In my view , serving a god who needs nothing makes as much sense as sending charity dollars to Bill Gates. I serve those who need it, and certainly not invisible figures who don’t. If the biblical god does indeed exist, I will never serve him because of his immorality on so many levels.
â€What in the heck is wrong with you people?…We live in such a status driven, go-go world that the only thing that seems to matter is money, power and what the other person thinks of you.â€
This is what I have found so typical of the Dyer audience: an over-generalized negative view of society; basically, a slightly veiled condemnation of their fellow citizens. Yet they profess to hold a positive and uplifting view of everything and everyone—everyone except those billions (if you have the ability to think beyond the U.S. Borders and include places like China, Europe, and India) living consumer driven lives. But really you are saying everyone else is flawed and you see above the flaw; it does not affect you because you have a higher understanding. I disagree. I think society by and large is remarkably good and not greedy. Consumer driven, perhaps, but what is wrong with that? Why is that a bad thing? Perhaps material acquisition does not lead always lead to happiness–but it does go a long way; you will not be happy freezing in a cave with lice, will you? Material acquisition is absolutely necessary to elevate to higher levels of fulfillment.–but why must you condemn them for this? Just because others may not be taking the road to true happiness (in your opinion, mind you) is that a reason to paint them all so disparagingly? Sounds like this is more of a statement about you than society.
 get off your butt and doing something positive for your fellow man and stop with your crying and moaning about what you think is wrong with his theories..â€
My argument exactly. He needs to get off his butt and do something other than write pitifully maudlin books full of sophomoric explanations wrapped in empty promises. His time would be much better spent actually doing something for the world instead of hiding out in Maui.
And, yes, I do a lot of charity work and travel the world doing so. Do you? And do you have the means to give back? Sounds like you don’t. (Can’t give what you have not acquired.)
 go from a street vagabond to the happy and spiritually healthy person that I’m today.â€
Note the careful choice of qualifiers there: “happy and spirituallyâ€. (It if were real, you probably would not need to qualify it.) So, most likely that means rather than really improving your circumstances with hard work, diligence, and frugality you simply opted out to be happy with the way things are. Is that really an improvement then? Typically that’s called deluding one’s self. But that is what Dyer teaches. He tells you the true goal in life is how you feel, not what you do; feelings over action. So, rather than being motivated to get an education, get a good job, acquiring material things that make life better, and then truly being in a position to help others, his “teaching†encourages you to simply change your view of your present circumstances and put little in the way of true action. That’s such wonderful adivce.
On another point, Vin, it seems that what Dyer’s worldview allowed you to do under your trying circumstances is rather than go through the difficulty of changing and mastering yourself in the “go-go world” where money and opinions are premium, you simply decide that all of society is wrong–not you. It’s everything around that is wrong, not you. Therefore, he gave you an escape clause: society is wrong for encouraging “greedy†values and, therefore, you have to do nothing because to engage society is to be playing into its repressive game.
The emphasis he places on not being competitive (he preaches things like avoiding all conflict, having a passive approach to difficulties, being inspired instead of being motivated, etc.) is an attempt to make one simply feel better, but at the expense of real action and real change. I realize he has written many times about improving one’s circumstances and making change, but his writing eventually evolved into a message of disengaging with society, or at least resisting most American cultural pressures, because it is essentially bad (his view) and is largely responsible for everything that is not working for you, and, thus, is really saying to do nothing but feel good.
His view is that if all children were never subjected to Western cultural pressures, they (we) would all turn out to be geniuses with amazing magical abilities such as moving objects with our minds, entering each other’s thoughts and collaborating grand visions, never doubting ourselves and ever self-confident, attracting abundance in money and relationships, and generally creating a utopian world where no one says or thinks a negative thought. (Yes, he has suggested all those things in various books.)
Can you really take that seriously? Do you honestly believe that the structure of society and its underlying culture is so damaging to the individual that underneath we all really possess these god-like abilities just waiting to surface? If so, can you name one culture or one time ever in history where these abilities ever did surface? Because there aren’t any. Thus, this means his indictment of societal repression has is an indictment of every culture in every country in every time period that ever existed. Such, he may point out some are less repressive than others (with which I would agree), but there is not a single example of the utopian society emerging that he describes in books like “Gifts of Eykis”. You have to ask yourself, how can that be? If what he says is true, why has it never come about before?
But he is not backed by more serious studies on this. For example, Dyer has written many times that we pick up little phrases from others that then go a long way in shaping our behavior and thought process. He says when we hear and learn to repeat things such as “you make me mad†we are shaped into blaming others for our behavior. And that bit by bit, phrase uttered by phrase uttered, we become self-doubting personalities not living up to our god-like potential. But more serious studies profoundly disagree with him.
For instance, there have been studies on twins who were separated at birth or very young age and grew up in different parts of the world (or country) with different parents and completely different environments and there turns out to be an unusual statistical correlation (much higher than normal distribution) of them winding up in the same jobs, pursuing the same interests, and having the same opinions. Thus, it is more likely that genetics had a far greater influence on their individual personalities than did society. Yet, from what Dyer tells us their local environments should have made them different. How does Dyer respond to that strong evidence that contradicts him? Does he reconsider what he claims? Does he think, “perhaps I’m wrong?†Does he refute it with his own research? No. When evidence contradicts his opinion, he simply says that his claims can’t be proven in an analytical sense. Like a politician he evades the question.
Dyer’s charge that society and cultural norms are the ultimate shapers of the individual are not supported by research. As is his claims about energy and almost everything else. How can you ignore that?
It seems to me that what some are trying to figure out is a link between What Dyer is saying and long lived “religious theories”. Perhaps there is a link that exists outside of mainstream dogma. a cohesive between the two. Maybe there is a fundamental flaw in mainstream christianity that produces the”seperation anxiety” by its legalistic view of mans relationship with GOD. Perhaps they dont give enough credit to Christ and minimize what he actually did on the cross and so need to institute laws in order to feel secure. People do tend to feel better when they preceive they are follwing all the rules. Consider for a second this though. What if when Jesus died on the cross and resurrected from the dead (which is the basis of christianity) the whole world was reconciled to GOD no matter what you choose to believe. That would mean that when you were born you were connected with GOD or “the source”. But since organized religion has its rules and regulations most get indoctrinated into a belief system that says ” you need to be reconciled so just do these things and believe this way and all MAY be well. No way of really knowing. NO peace. Perhaps this is a possible link between what Dyer means when he says a returning to the source. If we are connected to GOD no matter what you believe then we retain a GOD consciencenous. And so with that in us man has some times lived in harmony with it with out knowing why and where it comes from. Like the Taoists. The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao This is just a thought. Not meant to postulate any concrete truth here.
“It seems to me that what some are trying to figure out is a link between What Dyer is saying and long lived “religious theoriesâ€.
It seems to me that the original intent of this blog was pretty clear: Wayne Dyer barrows scientific words and then badly misuses them in his attempt to make his highly speculative claims seem backed by reason and clinical research. To call his claims “theories” is a misuse of a term, as well. He provides no predictive models for his claims so it is mere speculation not a theory.
“…they dont give enough credit to Christ and minimize what he actually did on the cross…”
Since no documents from first hand accounts exist of this event, how do you know what was meant at all–or even how it really went? Again, just speculation with no evidential basis. I could say with equal authority that you do not understand the meaning of the sacrifice of the flying spaghetti monster.
“What if when Jesus died on the cross and resurrected from the dead (which is the basis of christianity) the whole world was reconciled to GOD no matter what you choose to believe.”
So, before Jesus no one was connected to God? The brutal torture of a fellow human being magically joined all future humans with their creator? If that is your reasoning, wouldn’t it make more since that the actual moment of connection occurred during the Holocaust at the hands of the nazis? Wasn’t that actually a more significant event in the history of humanity?
“you need to be reconciled so just do these things and believe this way and all MAY be well. No way of really knowing. NO peace.”
Do you really believe that those who have no need for spirituality have no peace? I beg to differ. In fact, I have consistently found those who claim to posses spiritual peace tend to display the greatest amount of turmoil and are usually the ones who lash out the most vociferously at anyone who doesn’t take them seriously. Peace does not seem come with this kind of “knowing.” In fact, inner peace does not come at all from adopting the crutch of wild notions such as immortality and having an imaginary friend that creates an invisible support system. No, inner peace comes from simply behaving morally. Superstition does nothing to create inner peace anymore than one can say that the child who believes more in his/her imaginary friend is more at peace than the one who has no such imagination. All this “knowing”–(how can it even be qualified as a “knowing” which it is clear that Dyer uses this would so that you can convince yourself your belief is more than just a belief–creates is false expectations.
“…returning to the source.”
A number of big assumptions here: 1) there is a single source of all things. Why can’t there be many? All very separate and distinct? 2) That existence requires a source in the first place. 3) That randomness does not exist and that a first cause must exist.
“…If we are connected to GOD no matter what you believe then we retain a GOD consciencenous.”
New age nonsense. What does “God Consciencenous” even mean? That we retain god-like powers? If so, please demonstrate one? That we think like God? How do you know what God thinks like? How do you know God thinks at all? After all, Dyer has made it clear that thoughts are not part of “the source” and are actually created by it. If true, God doesn’t “think” because the source is behind the thoughts.
“And so with that in us man has some times lived in harmony with it with out knowing why and where it comes from.”
Sure they do. It comes from his actions, not any invisible connections. The decisions for the action come from a complicated neural network based on genetics, cultural influence, random experiences, and the health conditions of the individual not some magical force.
WOW! Most people, on this page have esghausted themselves trying to disprove somebody else. Whats the pourpose?
As ramakrishna says, “all religions lead to god.”
We all drink from the same well so to speak.
Yes Jesus died on the cross, but what about Budda? Then the other Idols?
If you actually listen to what Dyer saying, not just the words that you may think contridict themselves, maybe you would get something out of it. Maybe the word energy is the best description for what he is getting at. Can you think of a better on? Why dont we stop trying to figure God out and just let him in our lives, then maybe we would have a better understanding.
As I once heard it put, trying to figure God out is like trying to fit the ocean in a soda can.
Try this also, draw a picture of a stick person and then ask it to figure you out, can it?
Wayne Dyer has helped thousands of peolpe, in a million ways over.
Have you? Im sure God put him here for a pourpouse.
Oh, the irony…… railing on Dyer, yet here’s his mug and links for sale at the end of this page. Hmm.
Does god exist? Who knows god? ……. or what god is? If you “believe” …. is it a person, place, thing or “other”. Spare me the religious mumbo jumbo from this book or that book……. who here really knows god? No quoting from this book or that reference, I want to hear it for real from a human being.
“Why dont we stop trying to figure God out and just let him in our lives…”
On what basis do I have to believe in this nonsense? This is the same as asking “stop trying to prove whether fairies exist or not and just accept them.” It is not even a respectful position to those who have never bothered to simply accept anything anyone says. It is actually a position of authority you’re trying to establish: “Don’t question it (what I believe), just accept it.” Well, I do question it and I do question your intellectual ability to understand what it is you’re saying.
I have no reasonable basis to accept something that has zero evidence of existing. And I’m certainly not going to base my life decisions on it. The fact is, one is better off in many ways not setting their expectations in magical fairy dust.
By the way, why do you assume it is somehow exhausting for me (and others) to type a few statements every few days or so? My work is in computer science so I’m on the computer a lot (by choice) so dropping by this blog every now and then is hardly effort. Total all the time I have spent posting here: about 5 minutes a post and about 500 posts over the course of 395 days, it’s about 6.32 minutes a day on the average. I spend far, far more time on actual charity work.
Doesn’t it make more sense to question why Wayne Dyer spends months and years (many) making unsubstantiated claims and spreading negative his views on Western societal values and medical practices rather than digging it and really helping the world improve? Why is it assumed that because he writes a bunch of maudlin fluff that it is somehow making the world better? It’s not. It just makes people feel good, but so does sitting on one’s ass. Are you going to give sitting on one’s ass equal credit for improving the world then?
“…who here really knows god? No quoting from this book or that reference, I want to hear it for real from a human being.”
Well, that’s an interesting way to put it for the new age spiritualists who follow Dr. Dyer. Because they believe we are God and have within us all the powers and magical capabilities, but they are repressed by years exposure to Western society and its belief system. Since they believe we are not separate from God, they believe they speak directly as God. In fact, Dyer has said many times that his writing comes “through him” from God himself. Of course, he would only apply this to other writings that he agrees with. For example, would he say God wrote “Mein Kampf” as well?? So, “knowing God” in their eyes is nothing more than knowing yourself.
Basically, they add absolutely nothing to answering the question because it is just a semantical shift for them: rename the person to “God” and, poof!, there’s your answer.
“railing on Dyer, yet here’s his mug and links for sale at the end of this page…”
Well, it’s not because of anything Dr. Bacon did. It’s the automatic advertising out on the web that WordPress (which is what this blog runs on) connects to the title. It’s a good reminder that in the end Wayne Dyer is a salesman more than anything else, thus why his advertisement that he (or authorized) put out on the web wound up here.
There is absolutely no difference between supernatural beliefs in such ancient systems of junk thought as astrology and supernatural beliefs held by formal religions, which came later in human history. What unites all believers in all forms of the supernatural and the paranormal is that they either require no evidence or invent evidence to fit the faith they already hold. The belief that human fate is influenced by the “sign” of your birth date is no more and no less irrational than belief in the Virgin Birth, the divine parting of the Red Sea, the existence of a paradise in which virgins await Muslim martyrs, or the appearance of an angel named Moroni to hand down the Book of Mormon in a field in upstate New York.
The distinguishing characteristic of junk thought and junk science (a branch of junk thought) is their inability to distinguish between coincidence and causation. The stars were in a particular alignment on the night before a great battle, or the entrails of a goat were arranged in a certain formation, so that must be the reason why the battle was won or lost. You pray to God to save your home from a tornado and your home is saved; ergo, prayer must have done the trick. That your neighbor may have offered the same prayer and returned to find his home in smithereens must mean…well, what does it mean? Ah yes, God’s inscrutable plan. A mystery. Like the influence of the stars. Ours not to reason why.
I’m back from Mexico. We had a great time in Cancun. Anyway, being the Bible banger that I am, I read 3 more books in the Bible; Hebrews, James, and Song of Solomon. And I realized something while I read the book of James. All 12 disciples lost their faith in Jesus Christ. Even though they had witnessed every miracle he performed and listened to the words he spoke.
That your neighbor may have offered the same prayer and returned to find his home in smithereens must mean…well, what does it mean? Ah yes, God’s inscrutable plan
James 5:7 …See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains.
I’ll finish this thought later. God bless.
” I read 3 more books in the Bible..”
What a shame. You’d have learned so much more about your world had you read something like “The Black Hole Wars”. Instead, you’ve picked up some more on an obsoleted understanding of the world which is not accurate in the least. (You might as well have read “Origin of Leprechauns” or “Unicorn Anatomy”.) I like to further my knowledge when I read. That’s the point of growth, isn’t it?
“See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains.”
So, you do expect a reward for service after all!
As ramakrishna says, “all religions lead to god.â€
He also married a 5 year old when he was 23 years of age. Should we follow in his footsteps?
And almost every religion would profoundly disagree. Especially, polytheists like the Sumerians, or the Eygptians, or the Norse, or the hittites…wait! Most of humanity throughout history would disagree! What makes him more correct than all the rest? Where is the truth in what he says?
“Maybe the word energy is the best description for what he is getting at. Can you think of a better on?”
If you’re implying that Dyer has a deep grasp of some metaphysical nuance that is difficult to name and energy simply comes closest, I would suggest you don’t really get what his is talking about. What he is saying (and he does explain this in more than one book) that he views energy as movement. Frequency is the measurement of movement. And that the spiritual realm has the highest energy frequency possible–beyond measure. He is applying a half-baked understanding of science. It’s not necessarily what he is applying “energy” to, it is also the fact that I know he cannot explain what energy as it is used in science. That is, he really doesn’t know what it means to start with much less having the ability to start applying it to other disciplines, as you suggest.
He is trying to use the ideas and terminology of science to describe an invisible world that he and others have concocted in their minds with no supporting research or any kind at any level. He is pretty clear on this. He is not, as you suggest, imagining a complicated dynamic that is not easy to name. On the contrary. He is talking about well-worn subjects with no more depth than a sixth year college freshman. The fact that you think he is deep and lacks a good nomenclature to discuss a complicated topic comes because you are projecting an image on him and not really listening (i.e. active listening) and questioning what he is saying. If you did, you’d realize it is not the words that contradict but the ideas themselves. After all, Dr. Dyer freely admits he gives his lecture or books little thought before hand (one book he said he gave an entire 14 days to thinking and writing) and that they are spontaneous and an “energy flow from God.” That alone should give a clue that he cannot be that deep.
Well JonhQpublic, I agree with you, I like how you put “you might as well of read the origin of Leperchauns”. This statement basically a fact.
But facts cannot be elimanated by ideals.
But I must say, you speak the truth, at first I disagreed with your analization, but from a “logical” point of view, of proving what is provable, you have an extremely strong point, and also, I believe, if you have it figured out for the most part,”you shall know by your fruits”.
It seems you know what you are talking about, and have “fruits” so to speak.
I being a Harvard graduate,I can honestly say you have something others dont. I have underestimated you, and respect your ability to speak the truth.
I have read many of Dyers books, and gone “reover” the ideas of contradicting statements, {not just words} and have found what you have.Thank you for your ability to realize these things, and to point them out.
And no, we should not follow the steps of marrying a five year old.JK
Thank you, Conor. “Fact cannot be eliminated by ideals.” Absolutely agreed. The crux of new age thinking, however, is that facts are manifestations of ideals. That thinking is the reverse of what you said. Therefore, facts are not objective but created individually. To some degree what we expect does shape how we perceive events. But there is just nothing to show that thought is cause of the event unless we carry out the action. The problem is the general misunderstanding of coincidence vs. causation. Knowing how to critically identify which is which.
It is interesting to me that so many buy into the causation argument when so much of their lives turn out to *not* to be what they expected. How many wound in a life-long career in an unexpected field? That what came about in their lives was not a result of attracting what the set their minds on but just the opposite? They seem to find comfort in convincing themselves that what happened to them in the end is what they really needed after all. There’s nothing wrong with that per se. But it is rationalization and it turns coincidence into divine universal planning. And if there is no coincidence in life, then there can be no freewill because the freewill of others (especially collectively) will create coincidence for me. I do believe in freewill. Therefore, it follows that I believe in randomness.
And nothing rationalizes coincidence and bad decisions more than material success. Thus, Dyer, Chopra, Oprah, Ellen, etc. This is why we get such myopic advice such as “getting laid off can be the best thing that ever happened to you†or “those catastrophes in your life are good things.â€
Actually, taking a positive view of a bad event is healthy. No argument. Viewing a lay off as a challenge to improve one’s life is certainly good advice. But that is not what is being said in the new age context. What new age claims is that the bad event itself is the cause of something better; a link in a divine universal chain designed to protect us. This is junk thought in the same way astrology is. The individual’s ambition and tenacity can be the reason for the improvement, and the lay off can free up personal time, but often the upsetting event is actually coincidental to the subsequent success. I understand that it can be the catalyst for re-evaluating one’s life and that can lead to significant change, but new age vastly over-generalizes it and suggests that one be more cavalier about job security and instead focus on wants. But what is wrong with the individual who sacrifices their personal wants to pursue a career because it improves the lives of others? I applaud those individuals. But new age perspective is much like the gambler who only remembers his wins.
Among a group of gamblers, only those who enjoy large winnings will have the means to write books and appear on television show to advise others to do what they did. Yet what happened to them is mathematically random. But to the winner, all coincidence goes out the door. The losers we will never hear from, and yet to have a complete picture of the situation they must be included. Only focusing on the winners skews my assessment of whether I should play poker for a living or not. Additionally, the very event of winning large sums will encourage the winners to believe that all their choices in life up to that point were the right ones because…look at where it all led!
Therefore, a winner could equally claim that having that early morning scotch relaxed him enough to play better. So he can rightfully advise others to drink scotch before 9:00 AM. Or that because his wife left him last year freed personal time to play more poker and, thus, improve his skill. He can rightfully advise others that success starts with divorce. They no longer consider that the two events may really have nothing to do with each other or are only very loosely associated. In fact, you can plug in any life event you want with the winner and make it part of the cause of winning. The distinction between coincidence and causation is lost. Additionally, the focus is only on a very, very small percentage of the total set of events. Like the gambler who only remembers his winnings and then takes badly (un!)calculated risks.
Dr. Dyer consistently either ignores the losers or rationalizes them as “that is what they needed in their lives.†Why does he do this? When taking advice, why not assess the whole playing field before making life altering decisions? And certainly when publishing and selling advice for a living why not be as complete and thorough as possible? To do otherwise is reckless with other peoples lives. How many people have been laid off, made a serious attempt to re-invent themselves and pursue their passions only to dig themselves deeper in debt and despair? I am willing to bet it is far more than the ones who did it successfully. Yet, Dyer will not confront it only explain it away. That is not to say one shouldn’t take a risk. It is to say that when Dr. Dyer et al give the advice “throw caution to the wind and pursue your passion in life while ‘the music’s still in you’†they really should be including “look at your whole situation first.†Passion cannot be the primary motivator as Dyer suggests. Believing that your passion is a divine source directing you to do something is just asking others to take unnecessary risks. I applaud those who forgo their passions while “the music’s still in them†to pursue something far more important: the financial security of their family.
And more importantly, most of the passions suggested by new age authors are dependent on the Western economic infrastructure and yet they don’t seem to acknowledge it at all. That is, higher purposes (the passions, if you will) are things like music, art, writing, and so forth. All those things you can do once you’re healthy, well fed, and comforted from extreme temperatures and conditions. Looking at a much broader context than just Western civilization, what then are the higher purposes of indigenous tribes where hunting and gathering are the primary activities of life? They do not enjoy the economic benefits we do of others providing their basic needs so they are able to enjoy the “higher†pursuits in life. I do not believe that Dr. Dyer considers this. I believe he is under the impression that nature provides a Utopian life without the help of humans. I also know he suggests that perhaps that structure is part of the divine plan. If so, he is unwittingly saying that indigenous tribes are not in tune with the divine plan. I know he would not admit that, but if one accepts all of Western development (going back to the ancient Greeks) is part of a grand divine plan, then one also has to accept that:
1)Western globalization is then good for everyone (it’s part of the divine plan after all)
2)the Europeans are most in accord with divine purpose.
I don’t buy either of those. Higher purpose is nothing more than an artifact of civilized life where its members are so well taken care of they need something else to do. That hardly seems divine.
“Try this also, draw a picture of a stick person and then ask it to figure you out, can it?”
Draw a picture of a bearded man saying “ah” and then ask it if that is how it created the universe.
Draw a picture of white glowing sphere and then ask it if it created the universe, did it?
Your comment is loaded with assumptions and basically can be applied to any situation where there is a superior and inferior interaction between beings. It really adds nothing to the debate because its premise is taken from a forgone conclusion; its backwards logic. I can construct any argument in this manner and it would appear as a supporting statement. Therefore, it is not providing any information in a progressive forward direction, it merely works backwards from the writer’s conclusion. The question is the conclusion correct?
I believe it is safe to say that what is comforting about believing in a higher intelligent source is what we find comforting in the parental relationship we find ourselves in during the first part of life (or the parental values we adopt when we become parents ourselves). The helpless child that needs guidance and support is pretty much the God model. In fact, most descriptions of God including the new age version, “the source,” project their particular belief as it relates to the parenting role. That is, it is not unusual to find among Christians that belief in the strong-father parenting role is also reflected in a God that exacts reward and punishment on its earthly children. Christians are pretty clear that God is our “father.” The new age group tends to be a bit more subtle about this but resorts to the same kind thinking. Typically they prefer the gentler naturing style of parenting, which is then reflected in a “source” that is non-judgmental and naturing. And you find this in a many many views of the other-world.
Shouldn’t that raise a red flag? That is, whatever nearly random parenting situation we either find ourselves growing up in or happen adopt later in life also turns out to be the general model for how the entire universe operates? Isn’t that a little too convenient?
And what if we extend out thinking past humans and observe the parenting behaviors of all creatures–and, indeed, relationships among all creatures beyond just rearing. Wouldn’t one expect to find the fingerprint of the source all over? If the source is a gentle nurturing one, then non-human life will most likely reflect it. At least it would be a reasonable expectation. After all, this is essentially what is being applied to the human world by believers: “my preferred method of parenting is what I believe God to practice as well.”
Yet, there is no consistency at all in nature–or human world–when it comes to how creatures rear their young. Therefore, why is the parenting model the correct one to cast on the all-powerful being? Perhaps our relationship with it is more like a distant creature than a parent. After all, isn’t it true that for the extreme vast majority of all living organisms on this planet (universe?) don’t you have an unfamiliar, distant relationship with–that really your only relationship is through a cold ecological system and not a warm motherly one? Then why can’t our relationship with the intelligent being by like you have with the creatures inhibiting the dirt in your backyard? How is one model more valid than the other?
My point is that realizing how believers project their preferred human parenting model, which is not anywhere near how most creatures relate to one another, should be suspect of wishful thinking. In fact, it should be taken as a very strong indicator of wishful thinking.
Wouldn’t it be very odd that after discovering that most of the universe we uncover is absolutely nothing like we think–the subatomic world works nothing like what the human mind expects, large scale physical effects works nothing like the human mind expects, nature does not work like the human mind expects–that the ultimate being, the physicists of physicists, turns out to be just like mom and pop–just what the human mind expects?
And you have to ask yourself: that all those who can’t even grasp minimally how this world works can successfully model a universal after-world? Doesn’t it seem very unlikely that those who hold the least understanding of the physical world then turn out to hold the greatest understanding of the metaphysical world?
To make my last point a little more direct, I believe that if Wayne Dyer’s description of how the other-world operates turns out to be correct, it is rather like the dumbest kid in class coming up with his own partial differential equations (no training, mind you) and being right. What is the probability of that? If a person has difficulty grasping what is right in front of them, what are the chances they will grasp the mechanisms beyond them?
Still one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. Somehow I think this is perfectly representative of the new age mind.
http://havagr8day.livejournal.com/
Actually, it’s this line here I find amusing: “To delve into the cosmos like DB and Zero…”. So, the childish butterfly poem is on equal footing with quantum computers. (LOL! Sorry, but stupidity is funny.)
I haven’t read any of the responses. I just need to verbalize my thoughts on this whole Wayne Dyer thing that seems to be growing. My husband started reading his books, listening to his books, watching the programs and anything else he could get his hands on. While I see alot of positive changes in his attitude, he seems to have taken a devil may care attitude to money, life and family in general. he talks to me like I am disposable. If I’m with him in 5 years that will be fine, if not, that will be fine too. He makes plans for himself because things are speaking to him, vacations, seminars, spiritual outings etc. I feel like I don’t know him anymore and he’s okay with that. If this is what all of this WD stuff is about than I’m not into it at all. I thought becoming more spiritual would bring families together but its seeming like just the opposite in this case. Am I the only one???? Is he loosing meaning somewhere. I feel like he’s being brainwashed to a degree.
His message does seem of to have changed from self-responsbility from a strong secular perspective to new age spiritualist. Perhaps living with Ram Dass (one of the Harvard professors who dropped out of society in the mid-sixties to join Timothy Leary’s Millbrook bunch and later, about 1967, turned full spritual guru) has changed him. I don’t know. Ram Dass says in various documentaries that his purpose in life since discovering LSD has been to maintain its high *permanently* because it gave him insight into how the universe worked. There are a number of videos on youtube with Ram Dass and Dyer together.
Wow.
I can’t believe this virtual conversation has gone on for 2 years! Or, considering the participants, maybe I can.
So, my two cents: I found this place because I had seen WD on PBS last night and was wondering what the rest of the world thought about his “if you believe it, it will happen” ideas. I’m interested in what the world thinks because i am in the process of re-evaluating my spiritual beliefs. Which are, largely, none. I was raised Lutheran, but never really believed. It sounded like a fairy tale with no proof to me, much of it judgemental, malicious, and cult-like. Not Lutheranism in specific, just most organized religions in general.
Don’t get me wrong…I’ll give consideration to things that don’t have a ton of hard, cold evidence per se, but have *some* evidence. For example, JQP, I like a lot of what you say, you seem like a really intelligent, well-read, interesting individual. We would probably get along pretty well in real life, but you’re a LOT more skeptical of things like psychic ability and spirits than I am. Not that skepticism is bad. I completely respect that position. I have had some first-hand experiences that have made me at least open my mind to the possibilities of these “woo-woo”/”lavender mist”-type phenomena.
I have difficulty believing in a supreme being in the way we tend to characterize “Jesus” or “God” or “Allah”, like that of an actual person. Even the “Divine power” that the “woo-woo” people believe in is a stretch for me. Despite my leanings towards belief in psychic abilities and spirits, I seem to fall in line more with scientific-type beliefs such as evolution.
Anyway, I wasn’t really looking for feedback, but I did feel compelled to give a few shout-outs.
Jodee, you are my IDOL. 🙂 You are so incredibly sharp and intelligent, and I admire the self-analysis you’ve subjected yourself to and managed to change your religious views. You are a hero among women (and men), and I really enjoyed reading posts from such a clear thinker/writer. Wish I could know you in person. I also love that you farm. I’m envious of your lifestyle, difficult though I’m sure it is from time to time.
nez – you’re a really funny, observant, sharp mofo. Wish I knew ya.
JQP- like I mentioned before, I think we’d get along. I like you just from reading your posts, even if I differ on your positions.
And most significantly, HAGD/S – you seem like a lovely, thoughtful, genuine person. You do embody the earnestness of a child, communicated through prolific verboseness. You remind me of someone – me. A long time ago, before being diagnosed and treated for bipolar/mania. I don’t say that insultingly (hey, I just compared you to ME! And I like ME!), I say it out of concern that your wild unbridled creativity may have a darker genesis, from depression. Your writing reminds me of my speaking when I’m in a high or manic state. I’m not crazy. And I’m not saying you’re crazy. I refer to myself as an ‘overcommunicator’. Most people who know me personally (and whose ears are sore and bleeding) would agree with that analysis. I’m told I’m a nice, smart, successful, talented, funny person who just happens to talk A LOT sometimes. More than other people can (or want to) handle or process. It’s taken me a long time to get to the point where I can see that my quantity of communication isn’t considered ‘normal’, and learn to kind of stifle it a little bit when their eyes glaze over, and not to dominate a conversation, which I do naturally.
You also embody some of the traits of my mother, who also has depression. She is a wildly creative artist, very naieve and child-like in her honesty. She does beautiful oil paintings. But sometimes she’s up – can’t sleep, can’t eat, just paint paint paint, etc. Then she wont’ touch a canvas for months.
So, just out of concern that you might have something going on health-wise that you’re not aware of, I just wanted to say that I see signs of myself and my mother in you, and that if you’re not having up and down cycles, it’s probably not a bad thing. But just in case there’s times that you’re down and just don’t function on that same hyper level, you might want to talk to a dr. about it. I’d just hate to see you have a really bad downswing and have something bad happen, as does to many people who aren’t aware they aren’t in control of their brain chemistry (which is the true definition of depression – it doesn’t mean you’re ‘sad’. I’m not sad. But I still have a chemically imbalanced brain, therefore am classified as “with depression.).
I hope I haven’t insulted you (or anyone – that wasn’t my purpose); I just wanted to say, “wow”, this is one hell of a blog, and there’s some really interesting people here whom I have learned a lot from.
Oh, and of course, shoutout to Dave B. for getting the ball rolling!
Cheers.
“JC†not the one I’m thinking of? So, I guess you’re not director John Carpenter?? Bummer, I would have a lot to say to you.
Since you’re expressing personal comments regarding participants (which, I’m not sure if any of the originals from last August are around anymore), I’ll do the same as I really don’t have any more on-topic points to make. That well is pretty dry.
The cast of QP characters:
Jodee. Her doom and gloom just seems unhealthy to me, not to mention her racially tinged comment about illegal immigrants. So, I’m not even going there. I just don’t share her dark vision of civilization. I may be a skeptic, but I am definitely an optimist. If you’re one to buy into these large-scale conspiracy theories where secret holocausts are being carried out everyday and Mexicans are mostly criminals, we’re so far apart there is no discussion. To me these are the ideas of those who do not get out and see the wider world. It really is provincial thinking, indeed.
Zer0, Strikes me as a thinker but too easily swayed by unconventionalism. Oddly, the debate developed such that I ended up defending conventionalism, but casting me as wholly conventional is not very accurate—a little bit, but not as much as you’d think. Unconventionalism does not give ideas credibility. There really is only one path to validate any theory: demonstration and peer critique. There’s no escaping the superiority of multiple people thinking about a problem and solution versus one, anything else is a form of narcissism. The romanticized myth of “the lone thinker against a crazy conventionalized society†(and the horribly misunderstood position of Einstein and how he dealt with the conventional science of his time) is so overused that it itself is conventional thinking. The number of times where that lone person was validated by later historians among the billions and billions of people who have walked the earth is so small as to be a very much an exception.
HavAGr8Day. Interesting observations, JC. Actually, my interpretation was different. (Yours seems more insightful and you may be on to something. I don’t know.) My take on her was that she may have actually been a teenager posing as an adult. Some of her personal claims just didn’t add up at all and were easily explained if she were a kid playing around on a blog. But I wasn’t sure. But I did engage her as an adult–who seemed to me she never grew up and left home. (Her descriptions of home mentioned parents and relatives, never husbands, partners, roommates, kids, etc.) The fact that she never once uttered a single phrase in prose of an adult (I’m not intending that as a put down, but just an honest observation) yet claimed an advanced degree in the medical field, not to mention a published author in the medical field, mind you, puzzled me. How can someone posses such skill and yet never cut it loose when needed? I got the impression she was just not being that honest here. But it’s just a place to express a point of view, so it doesn’t matter. I don’t mean to counter your kind words, but that is my honest opinion.
Andrew. While certainly most on the other side of the fence from me ideologically, actually was the most reasonable in my view. From my personal perspective that is odd because belief in organized religion and being reasonable very often do not go hand-in-hand. Dave thought he was petty at times. I found him engaging and open minded. (Isn’t always the case when someone doesn’t buy what you’re saying you’re called closed minded? So, I’m not going to label him closed minded simply because he doesn’t agree with me.)
JoeG. For a spiritualist, I thought he made some profound points. But he got frustrated and left. It is a shame that many on the spiritualist side have trouble seeing the optimism and positivism of skepticism. The problem, actually, is they stereotype and don’t really tune in because they are convinced that questioning dubious claims is negativity.
As for me, I rarely express my skepticism in daily life. My wife is a believer in astrology, reincarnation and a whole host of other nonsense. I don’t take it seriously and she is the light of my life. We’ve been together for over 30 years. And I rarely give my views in normal conversation. Once flying to England at the front of the plane were you only have one other person sitting next you, that person was a young woman (twenties) who told me about how she talked to spirits and, in particular, her dead sister. I never challenged her and expressed my view in the most unchallenging way I know: “I never had your experiences, so I have no reason to believe in spirits.†This was a 10 hour ride from where I am, mind you. I’m not argumentative and I listen a lot. But, oddly, those sharing with the world just how wonderfully, positively, wildly, amazingly, and profoundly happy they are about…well, everything tend to be the least well-adjusted. Even you picked up on that from our resident flower girl.
LOL JQP…I am certainly not John Carpenter. Funny that this is the “JC” that jumped into your mind. Good one, though! With all the bandying about of religious beliefs, I didn’t want anybody interpreting my plain old initials as standing for “Jesus Christ”! That would certainly put me on the opposite side of the fence that I typically reside on!
I must have missed Jodee’s comment involving immigrants, I only read the first 600 (!) or so then collapsed from exhaustion. heh But that is a subject near and dear to my heart as I’m married to one and I’ve lived in the communities and have a slightly different perspective. If it was a racially-oriented comment, that disappoints me.
As to the flower child, I never did interpret her as a teenager; my mother is a very sweet person but very child-like in her thoughts sometimes. If she wasn’t heavily medicated for borderline personality disorder/bipolar/manic depression now, she’d probably be filling up blogs with comments too, in a random, disorganized manner.
So probably because of my experience with my mother, I just assumed that she was an adult and took most of what she wrote at face value (big fault of mine) and never questioned that she was who she said she was. I just think she’s not terribly self-aware, poor thing. Most depressives, especially bipolars enjoy the creativity and burst of energy they get when they’re in the mania stage of their cycles that they think it’s fine, that they’re more enlightened than ‘normal’ people and don’t want it treated for fear of losing that creativity/productivity. Unfortunately, what goes up must come down, and the higher you swing, the lower you fall, and that’s when deep, dark depressions (and frequently unexpected suicides) happen. That’s why I bothered to make the comment.
I certainly didn’t want her (or anybody) to feel attacked, but if I need to take some snipe fire to possibly educate somebody who may be suffering from depression (even if they don’t see it as ‘suffering’ per se), it’s worth donning the ol’ teflon underwear.
🙂
JC, it sounds like you know what you are talking about. Certainly, if HavAG8Day is hyper-sensitive through no fault of her own, then I would certainly feel bad for challenging her as I did. I had not considered a possible medical condition. It was noted here in this blog by others that she seemed to take it all seriously, so perhaps that was a sign. Well, I only wish her the best.
This was Jodee’s comment on 9/28/2008:
“I’m not sure what the point was about the heavy illegal immigrant population of the West Coast. Where I live, this population has been responsible for a dramatic increase in sexual assaults, weapon, drug and vehicular crimes like hit and run. The press plays it down, but the police know it’s true.”
I could not disagree more. My brother has been a deputy for more than 20 years, and, no, the police do not know “it’s true.” And the press playing “down” crimes by minorities?? Are you kidding me??
Anyway, I wanted to point that out to you, JC.
Jodee’s comment coupled with the fact she was raised in a very strict religious environment and has expressed an absolute distrust in any authority, seems to me is the provincial thinking of someone fearful. When Obama said, “they cling to their religion and guns,” which I think is a true statement, this is the kind of mentality he was referring to.
The “illegal immigrant” comment: I have an issue with that. Here we sustain a massive economy on the backs of these people, who suffer substandard pay, substandard conditions, and are usually away from their families for long stretches, and then we turn point to finger at them for crime. Blaming them for our problems.
I mean, immigrants responsible for an increase in hit and runs? She’s either saying they’re doing it on purpose or they’re just bad drivers because of their genes. (Your race determines your driving skills?? That is thinking is right out of the backwoods of West Virginia!)
The fact is, the U.S. should turn and give a big thank you–by removing their illegal status so they’re employers will be forced to stop abusing them–to them instead of the finger, if you will. It’s American arrogance at its ugliest.
“Spirititual energy is the energy of abundance” means that the source of everything is an infinite ever-flowing state of awareness which has the quality of unlimited potential. Since it is not a limited substance such as any material thing we can think of, ‘spiritual energy’ is an appropriate term.
“the source of everything is an infinite ever-flowing state of awareness which has the quality of unlimited potential…”
That’s just someone’s speculation not backed by a single predictive model. Where is the unlimited potential demonstrated, then? What example of “unlimited” do we have? The examples given by Dyer are very much within the bounds of limitation. That is, they do not demonstrate any violation of physical laws.
The problem, Nate, is you are stating it in declarative sentences as if it were a fact when it is actually pure speculation. Is that really being honest, then, and is it consistent with spiritual mores? It does not seem to me it is. If it is speculative then it should be fully qualifed as a speculative statement.
The difference in the language of science and the language of spirituality is that science makes every effort to be absolutely honest about everything it purports. If something is conjectural, no matter how convinced the scientist is that she/he is right, they will still state it as “conjectural” or “speculative” until there is vast confirming evidence and vast consensus that confirms it. Stating something is true before one is absolutely sure is not to be entirely honest with others.
That begs the question: why do spiritualists, who aim at the highest moral standards, fudge when it comes to their own speculative beliefs? Basically, to say any way you want to phrase it, that they “know” of “spiritual engery” is to lie to others. They cannot know of it and they do absolutely no rigorous work to check it out. They just make a quick leap to a conconclusion and be done with it–then state it in a way that it sounds like they did rigorous research.
For example, the statement above: “…ever-flowing state of awareness which has the quality of unlimited potential…”. Nothing qualifies it as “I believe that” or “it is speculated that” or “it is conjectural”. Further, it attempts to sound authoritative and scientific when it is neither. Thus, the whole point of the original blog comment: spiritualits use scientific language to make their hollow claims sound more authoritative than they really are. In other words, they’re lying and they know it. Not only are they lying, but anyone with a little scientific background can see right through it, so they’re not even good at it.
Where is the moral honesty in pumping up your opinions to make them sound more rigorous and authoritative than they really are?
“Where is the moral honesty in pumping up your opinions to make them sound more rigorous and authoritative than they really are?”
Isn’t that like the pot calling the kettle black , JQP?
You’re sure pumping up your opinions here, but really, what do you know more than anyone else?
What does anyone know absolutely?
You appear in the blog to pigeonhole groups and individuals, as if you are an authority on all humans.
Who among us knows so much…..and lives in perfection of mind, body and spirit?
You make someone like Dyer to be an immoral charlatan. Maybe he is , maybe is not. On who’s authority do you know what is in his mind and spirit? Have you met him? Have you walked in his steps?
Have you walked in anyone’s steps you pigeonhole in this blog?
-Garth
So, your opinion, Garth, is that no one should critque another unless they have walked in thier shoes? Did you need to walk in Jim Jones’ shoes to know he was insane? Did you need to walk in Nixon’s shoes to know he was a criminal? No. Critial judgment is made all the time on the basis of evidence.
And the atheist has an overwhelming mountain of evidence and science, dating back to the ancient Greeks, on his side. The spiritualist has no evidence, no science to back him. Why is that not enough to make a critique legitimate?
“Critical judgment is made all the time on the basis of evidence.”
Yes, it is. And people are convicted and reproached every day based on “evidence” found to be false(or partially so). “Evidence”, by it’s very nature an attempt to condense the past into the present, can never be complete. There is always more to a story or event than is told after the event(s).
There is always an individual bias in giving, collecting and presenting “evidence”. The determination of who’s biased “evidence” is more believable is in itself more bias. Bias in inescapable.
“And the atheist has an overwhelming mountain of evidence and science, dating back to the ancient Greeks, on his side. The spiritualist has no evidence, no science to back him. Why is that not enough to make a critique legitimate?”
Is this a science vs. spiritualist debate? Endless. How did we get here? Where did all this come from: our thoughts …… our beings……. our universe(for lack of a better term, the space around us as far as science can detect)…..emotions……. ENERGY? Where? How? As far as I know, no scientist or spiritualist know the answers.
So, everyone forms an opinion based on something….. weather perceived “scientific” or “spiritual”. Who knows more than the other? I suspect neither, as we are far more alike than we can ever be apart. Yet, we often continue to take sides, claiming mine is absolutely right, yours is absolutely wrong and some will go to criminal extremes to back up their side. This behavior continues today despite advances in science and spiritualism.
Does it ever change?
“Is this a science vs. spiritualist debate?”
In a way. It’s really spiritualists stealing the language of science for their own use and not using it as science means it or showing signs of understanding it. Mostly, the concepts of quantum mechanics are completely misrespresented by Dyer. He clearly does not use his scientific terminology accurately. That is the charge and it is pretty clear, not the whim of bias.
But, additionly, throughout history all most all phenomenon thought “magical” has been proven to obey physical laws. Dyer is specifically trying to say that QM phenomenon is a manifestation of conscienious (he wrote a whole book on it). And ask any QM scientist about Dr. Dyer’s interpretation. It is not a simply matter of bias, it is rigorous understanding. Dyer has no depth in science and therefore doesn’t know what he is taking about. His PhD is in Clincal Physcology from Wayne State University in Detroit. That does not give him a license to start expounding on complex topics like physics, let alone QM, and publishing books on QM interpretations.
Garth, there really is no bias on Dyer’s misuse of the word energy. Dyer, in more than one book, defines as a “vibration” and that “spiritual vibration” is a frequency too fast to measure.
First, “energy” is related to mass through e=mc^2. So, right off it is a property of something physical, not metaphysical. (Photons are massless energy, but they are physical and obey physical laws such has reacting to gravity.) Secondly, energy is not a single form but alters forms through the law of conservation. Therefore, to describe it as a “vibration” is like saying electrons are little balls. (The model of electrons as little spheres is about 70 years out of of date. They are far more complex than that and describing them as such is inaccurate in every way.)
Dyer’s descriptions show a substantial lack of understanding what energy really is.
Did anyone really buy his butterfly story? I didn’t. I mean, it just didn’t seem genuine.
Jqp-
Thanks for the shout out. I may be one of the most open minded on “my side of the fence” simply because I’m straddling the fence. People get upset that I can’t just believe in God or just be an atheist. I’ve had devout Christians say that the reason I am not sold out to Christ is because I read contrarian views.
But isn’t that the point, if your faith is built upon a solid foundation then it shouldn’t sway in the wind when Dawkins comes near for example.
I think I want to believe in Christ so much that I tend to lend more credibility to the religious evidence. When I read the four gospels, they can be so uplifting, but then later I feel I may be getting duped by a con artist. That Christianity is a charade and the church I sometimes attend reinforces that very idea.
Anyway, hope everyone is good.
Hello JQP.
I just came across an article about electron behavior and thought it might be interesting to you and Dave.
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0809&RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=I&CommonCount=0
I see that the debate is still continuing. I wish I could stay and participate, but I have to run the R&D department. Two of my colleagues resigned, now I am the only one here.
How is everything with you?
JQP, I saw your summery of Zer0 back on 8/1/2008.
“Zer0, Strikes me as a thinker but too easily swayed by unconventionalism.”
You may be right. I guess my curiosity and the ability not to judge based on the first impression leads me down some paths that others wouldn’t necessarily take. I am like an explorer, collecting information, some of which may fit the puzzle right away but some of it just has to go into the big box and wait until some other piece of the puzzle is found that makes it fit the puzzle. I am not searching for anything specific because it would narrow my focus and I would miss other important things outside of that narrow field of view. My attitude is that I will expose my mind to ALL information and let my mind make the connections between the bits and pieces to construct the full picture. That picture is constantly changing and getting refined and filtered. I just have to make sure that the filtering doesn’t go out of control. But I don’t consider my picture the right or the best picture. It is just a picture based on the information, processing, and filtering that my mind performed.
I am swayed enough to take a glance and harvest information, then it’s back on course.
That reminds me, I got to get back to work.
I’ll try to visit as much as I can. I enjoy everybody’s posts.
Hello Jodee,
I am glad that you are still visiting this blog. I on the other hand have been overwhelmed with work and haven’t visited for a long time.
I had a little time and read a couple of your posts.
Always enjoy reading your opinions. I will definitely make some time and read all your posts.
My daughter is now 2.5. She is a great little girl. She has filled a big void in my life. I can’t imagine my life without her.
Hope everything is great at your center of the world. By the way, read about the electron behavior at the link I sent to JQP above. You will find it interesting.
JQP – thanks for you many posts — as I read atleast the first 800posts I was SO glad you were ther along with an intermittant smattering of others that helped you. disabuse many a person from a well intentioned but ofthen poorly reasoned or non reasoned point of view. you kept me from wanting to write a 50 page letter of responses. To all those good people who like Wayne Dyer and are looking to evolve yourself spiritually. I applaud your search and your defense of concepts like love and unselfishness. But it does matter how love and that Tao Te Ching are formulated and by who. why? because misuse of scientific language and concepts that are way way out of context, and the use of “REAL” Great thinkers to bulster an otherwise poorly reasoned statement of a metaphysical belief system, can lead people down wrong paths and give false hope for things that are not part of reality in the raw. Your best protection against wasting time among such as JP Sarte would call “bad Faith” arguments, is to first become very self aware of what are your own deep yearnings that might biase your interpretations of what is true and what is not. the second and frankly even more important thing is to get a basic but solid grounding in what is science, and what is philosophy and what are the tools they employ. basically we are talking about scientific method and logically sound reasoning. you do not need to to become a phd in them to be able to not be fooled by “bad Faith answers” you merely need to understand them as tools or processes that over time mankind has found yeild solid and reliable results that can be trusted, but also have their various limitations. I think in todays modern hodge podge of educuation, people are often very frustrated by the jargon of science and the cold unfeeling nature of its method and they are equally frustrated by the seeming snootyness of philosophy and its writers. But that is really because of a lack in basic education. First and foremost, even beyond it being a collections of knowledge, Science is a discipline, just like say karate, it has it origins, and its defined rules of behavior and it has reasons for them. In short it is a process and so is philosophy, it is the totality of useful mental exploration techniques that were developed before and beyond the scientific method and basically has morphed into three areas of modern disciplines, the first and most central being logic, the second being math, which while not necesarily directly stemming from philosophy is certainly and extension of logic. it is a system of speaking about the world and the way we look at it by using a series of mathematical conventions that are true the same wa logic is true, because the universe is set up that way. why does one need to know atleast the basics of these things before wandering into the land of the intuitive and the amorphous? A person needs to be grounded in this so that they can see fuzzy concepts with greater clarity by applying the various tools. in the end. all human thought moves forward by some intuitve or creative leap and then we operate on these leaps to see which ones pan out by applying both logic and experimental method to them. Why because they are the only ways we have yet come up with to be sure we being both accurate and precise enough in our descriptioin of something that we may present it to someone else who has never heard about it as a usable peice of knowledge. In a liberal democracy where everyone is entitled to think what they want to. if we did not put theset “rational” limits on what is done and what is accepted versus what is thought. we would all be spending a great deal of time occupied with nonsense. that said. There are many great intellects who believe that science and logic are not the only ways to perieve what is in the world. Einstien said science without faith is blind, and faith without science is lame. his point there could be put in a way that even atheists might agree with. And that is science with out listening to our inner intuitive voice is blinde, and science without our inner intuitive voice is lame. for those not physicists. Poor Mr bacon here who has the kind of brain that is aptly rigged for doing physics and holding in head many an obscure lable attached to many a mathematically precse definiton. was originally simply stating how tired he is with other people from other field ripping on science on one hand, and then using its terms wholly incorrectly to justify and lend a false sense of scientific rigor to the ideas being presented on the other. And for those of you that are not just not that science and or logically oritented. I would say you cannot dismiss so quickly that which has literally a human history’s worth of usefulness to back up it validity and method if you yourself have not put fort the effort to atleast get a basic mastery of it. and does it matter how love is formulated and by who ? sure Love is an amorphous concept meaning no precise scientific definition. but how is one going to protect themselves from hucksters if they they throw out the marjority of mans mental tool box in the process of wanting to embrace the feel good falsehoods. which is almost as good of a definition for one of the first critical thinking terms a peson will learn and that is fallacy or fallacious thinking. Which brings me back to why if ones want to first fly they might first spend some time crawling and walking and building the basis for the metaphysical spaceship, lest they just appear like yet another undisciplined space cadet. now back to JQP and many of those like him. thanks for spending many an hour lending your ideas to this discussion. while I have not doubt that you have learned many things yourself, I appreciate the grounding and breaking down of the usually opaque or un heard of to those who are sincerely looking for things in their life but needed some from the patient but well versed in disciplined inquiry type of person. As I have alwasys said, truth can be a very demandind and seemingly harsh mistress at times, but when it really counts she will never lead you astray. — I am sorry to all but i did not have time to proofread this but I think it likely pretty readable regardless
Good post, RWG seeker. I’m out in NY right now. I came out to help with the ground zero ceremonies yesterday. What pandemonium! The 911 “truthers” (who were here in throngs marching and I got to talk to) I found mostly just hate government. Period. Rational is not a word I would use to describe many of them. (Not exactly MIT grads, either. That is, many were very inarticulate–yes, speech is a reflection of thought so it matters–or this was the only subject they seemed to know anything about. Provincial is a word I would perhaps use.)
Fortunately, proof reading is not a requirement in this blog. If you read Dr. D’s many other posts (on his other science site), you’ll see he agrees. 😉
I will resume this blog when I return home next week.
RWG seeker, I have some time so I thought I’d respond.
I liked many elements of your post, so I don’t want to give you the impression I only criticize (however, critical thinking is actually at the heart of this blog) but we do have common ground. And, yes, you’re right, I did learn things here. But I believe that my learning is much the same as Andrew described his at one point: it reinforced my beliefs rather extended them to new ideas. I’m beyond any doubts about religion and spirituality: they simply contain no truths. It was not just this blog, but just a lifetime of experience. I have spent many years wondering all the same imponderables many express here and read books upon books about religion and philosophy. I spent years thinking and questioning those things like the meaning of life, what significance does anything have, is there life after death, is there a supreme being, are there many supreme beings, and so forth. All the normal human existential inquiries about ourselves. And all roads lead to atheism for me. Faith makes absolutely no sense. The more I downgrade spirituality as silliness, the better my attitude is towards people and service in general. Most people say otherwise. They say it, but usually don’t act on it. Many, many self-proclaimed spiritualists, and definitely most who identify themselves as Christian, don’t really do anything for anyone. Their idea of “service†is church on Sunday, asking for forgiveness on Easter, and hoping God will favor them over others. Or meditating on good thoughts. The more I refute the existence any god, especially the Christian imagined god, the more focused I am on a helpful attitude towards others. (If the Christians turn out to be right, I am certainly going to hell as because I would refuse to worship their highly immoral being. I would rather be ethical and go to hell, than be salvaged because of a god demanding worship.) My personal progress is sort of like the way historians describe the renaissance as it emerged from the Middle Ages: the less otherworldly society became, the more beauty that emerged in art and culture. I found that true in my own life. When one stops wishing, or hoping, or counting on a better afterlife, the better they make this one. The more one emphasizes action over nice thoughts, the better things improve.
Basically, this idea completely refutes Dyer’s most basic tenet: that the focus on the physical world over the spiritual results in an ego centric existence (“Earth Guide Only.â€). Nonsense. Believing you’re a spirit living out your time in a human existence is one of the world’s most fundamental problems. It was that very belief that caused those hijackers to end their lives and thousands of others by flying those planes into the buildings that once stood just outside the window I’m looking out now. It was the promise of a spiritual afterlife that drove them to do something so insane. Had they been focused on this life, I’m sure they would not have done it. Faith simply does not work for me on any level. But, to be fair, I admit would never even be able to get over the first hump: prayer. There is no difference in a person praying and a schizophrenic talking to his delusions. They are essentially the same thing; and both do it for the same reasons: they’re convinced it is not a delusion. But I have asked all the same questions, and pondered the same mysteries you and others here have. But all roads for me come that not one of the speculative ideas from sacrificing to Baal-Hammon, to Loki, to Alah, to immortal existence (in another form), to a magical superior being, or beings depending on your region and time, ring true at all for me. For any argument constructed for the existence of God, it will also work perfectly to support the existence of Loki, Baal-Hammon, or any of the Mayan gods. If you buy the argument for one god, then it follows you’ve also bought into the argument for these more obscure gods. It is not likely they can all be right. Do you really think there are gods requiring human sacrifice for salvation? If not, what is your argument against it? Does then that argument not also apply perfectly against the Judeo-Islamic-Christian God, too? And you say it is “faith,†then you are really saying, “I want to believe what I want to believe with any regard to truth.†And, thus, no different that the schizophrenic holding on to his delusions.
†To all those good people who like Wayne Dyer and are looking to evolve yourself spiritually.â€
I agree with this sentiment. If the conversation here was only about how nice some people are, then by all means yes. I’m certain Wayne Dyer is a very nice person. No doubt about it. But you said I kept you from writing 50 page posts (I believe you meant in agreement, not refutation), so I’m not sure why you would use the world “evolve†in this context. I say that because spiritualism, in all of its forms, is escapism. So, saying one is “evolving†because they find that the reality of survival too difficult and turn to spirituality is rather like saying an alcoholic “evolves†because he found a way to escape the day-to-day struggles. I believe they have actually “devolved.†Truly the highest attainment in life is mastering the struggle of survival and not running from it or convincing yourself there’s something better at the end, or that it all is part of a great plan. You’ll best handle life’s difficulties if you take them head on realizing there probably is no payoff and no plan whatsoever. (Why people yearn for a master plan is one spiritual notion that I have never, never understood. I don’t want to be a part of anyone’s or anything’s plan at all. Why would anyone not want to be the decider of their own destiny?) If you can find happiness without the need for escape, then you are truly well adjusted. Spirituality is keeping one eye at all times on the exit door to life.
â€â€¦ first become very self-aware of what are your own deep yearnings that might bias your interpretations of what is true and what is not…â€
I believe “bad faith†really referred to his ‘a posteri’ view of knowledge, which I believe you’re confusing with bias. “A posteri†meant the totality of the after experience. While personal biases play a part, he was really talking about conceptualization which is much broader than just bias; it refers to actively (and that’s the key point because it is not active in that you control them, but active within you—like a heartbeat) constructing your experience, not just receiving it passively. I can understand how one might confuse that with simple bias or “creating your own reality,†but I believe that is a misinterpretation. Mostly because “bias†connotes the subjective opinions one adopts. I don’t think that is what he meant. He was talking about cognitive construction which is about things like language and its syntax. So, it’s about processes which are abstract but you don’t really control. Bias you control (as you have pointed out).
†Great thinkers [tend] to bolster an otherwise poorly reasoned statement of a metaphysical belief system.â€
I like that. Agreed.
†people are often very frustrated by the jargon of science and the cold unfeeling nature of its method and they are equally frustrated by the seeming snootiness of philosophy and its writers.â€
This has long been true. Language is almost universally the barrier against the uninitiated. The priesthood has long, long used language to keep others out—Latin. The difference with science and philosophy is they use language not as a barrier but for precision. The barrier is formed only because those who have a bad reaction to it see no need for such precision. Therefore, I believe the true root cause of that frustration is laziness—and at some level the lazy know it. (Just my opinion.) That is different than how the church or spirituality erects linguistic barriers. They create barriers in the form of belief systems. “You must believe this in order to join.†Science and philosophy have no such qualifications for entry. In fact, all their contributors enter with unique, not consenting, belief systems. In fact, all the great contributors of science are precisely great because they were dissenters. No such status is ever given to dissenters in the church. In fact, they abhor dissenters to the point of violence.
â€â€¦science without faith is blind…â€
Okay, who am I to question the great one? But I don’t think science benefits much from faith at all. Perhaps gut feeling or intuition, but not faith. And more often than not that initial gut feeling is twisted and corrected by reality. As DB said here reality is the straitjacket of imagination. Could Einstein be using faith to mean imagination and not spirituality?
I understand your attempt to appeal to “both sides†here. But I do not understand why religion and spirituality have achieved the exulted status of being unimpeachable in our society and science has not. That is, many who may not have religious inclinations will still go out of their way to be understanding towards it, yet nothing equals the violence it has set upon the world. (Would we treat the holocaust with such kid gloves?) Progress towards a peaceful existence cannot be made until we shake the insistence there are otherworldly plans for us. I go as far as even to suggest that belief in reincarnation or astrology is a disturbance to this life. (This goes back to my escapism argument.)
Spirituality is at the opposite end to self-actualization. To support that point, just witness snake handling worshipers speaking tongues. Would anyone say they’re self-actualized? I think it is safe to say they are on the opposite end to those who lead well-adjusted lives. Spirituality is a move away from true fulfillment because it substitutes it with fantasies of the unknown. It has done nothing to deserve the unimpeachable status that it has attained.
Zer0, I read your link and lines like “an electron behaves egocentrically or like an individual if it leaves the molecule quickly” are just laughable. Are you saying electrons are tiny living organisms?
Or electrons “are aligned as if in military formation”. Okay. So they band together and make little wars with the terrorists protons?
I know you’re well meaning, Zer0. But conversing with you seems to invariably wander into land of the lost. I know you think I’m just not being open to new ideas, but really I just tired of junk science. I have seen and heard like things so many times before I’m just immune. Don’t confuse experience with close mindedness. That is, could you be on to something? Sure. I’m hardly the last word in such matters. But fairies could exist, too. I just don’t think it is likely. I like to go with the favorable odds.
Andrew:
“But isn’t that the point, if your faith is built upon a solid foundation then it shouldn’t sway in the wind when Dawkins comes near for example.”
Only if you want to abandon your God given reason. You’d think reason was your highest calling from God, not something to be tossed aside and then tested to see that you really did toss it aside. It’s like saying, “the real test of my speculative world is that I still adhere to it even when it’s under attack.” It’s not a useful argument because you can say it about anything no matter how ridiculous. Here’s your logic:
– Speculate on something. Anything at all.
– Any counter attacks on that speculation is a test of your speculative powers
But your faith is not built on a solid foundation, unless you mean that to be how strongly you believe in the face of evidence.
Attract Anything You Want in 30 Days!
(See at the bottom of page?)
Do we use Energy? or our Credit Card?
Ha! LOL! Yes, you can attract anything you want through mental energy…except his books. For that, only monetary energy works. It’s an unexplainable oddity of the universe.
Andrew, a little elaboration on my response to you on “solid foundation” and tests of faith.
If you were a forensic examiner and you initially had a hunch about who committed the crime, would you:
A) Allow evidence found that contradicted your hunch to change your mind?
B) Interpret the contradicting evidence as a test of your hunch and steadfastly stick to your hunch?
Not changing your mind in the face of facts is not showing a strength of faith, it is showing an unreasonable response. What is the difference between your “strength of faith” and just plain stubborness? If I found evidence that contradicted atheism, I would change my mind. That may not mean I would turn to worship (because as I’ve stated many times before, the Christian god as described by Christians cannot ever be worthy of worship), but I would accept the evidence nonetheless.
Question for anyone who believes in the Ram Dass claim (Dyer’s spiritual guide who he is promoting his books and lectures) that before we’re born we design our life. Not only what family we’re born into, but everyone we meet (he says even those we pass by on the streets) and everything that happens to us. That our own destiny is planned by us in order to teach us something. While I have not seen Dyer say this, he does stand with and support Ram Dass and I’m pretty sure he would agree. Otherwise, why would Dyer encourage so many to listen to Dass’s lectures?
This question also for anyone beliving in the LOA (Law of Attraction) promoted by Oprah as “The Secret.” That is because the LOA claims that not only what focus on you attract in your life, but what you fear you also attract.
My question is:
– Would anyone plan to be born into a life of slavery?
– Would anyone plan to die in the Twin Towers or aboard the planes that were hijacked?
– Would anyone plan to be captured, imprisoned and sacrafice their loved ones in Auschwitz because the experience contained lessons?
Additionally, another thing I wonder is if life is a journey, meaning there is no destiny or place of arrival, what is the point of these devine lessons? If there are lessons, then there must be a destiny. That makes a difference how one chooses to live their lives. The point of reminding us life is a journey is so we don’t get too wrapped up in the significance of every event. It is supposed to remind us not to worry (a big thing with Dyer as in every one of his books he elaborates on this ad nausem) because of its futility. However, if we indeed are learning because of some universal plan then why does it not make sense to be concerned that we are progressing properly? Or does learning the lesson not matter?
And why are the lessons always of an emotional nature? Learn patience; learn love; learn kindness. And how is it that nature is designed such that seems to be nearly devoid of any of these attributes? That is, there are no natural examples. And why as you unwind civilization are there less and less of these attributes? Does that mean that the infrastructure on which civilization is built, which permits us the time and means to focus on love, kindness, and patience, is part of god’s plan, too? If so, then are indigenous tribes not part of god’s plan? Only Europeans and their descendents are?
If you believe civilized life and the time it permits for all the non-survival related activities we consider “higher,” aren’t you being Euro-centric? Aren’t back to where some Christians are in that white people are the chosen ones?
http://www.believeandmanifest.info/m/ppc/simple_index.php?med=p&src=gaw&ref=c-WayneDyer&gclid=CKzfy63d3pUCFQJHxwodnDKmXw
Hi, I am Dr. Eric Amidi. I am a Quantum Physicist.
I was part of a group who discovered Top Quark, the last subatomic particle, at Fermi National Laboratory in 1995.
My many years of research in Physics, Philosophy, and Spirituality have led me down a path that has crossed yours today.
As Quantum Physics tells you and you can see in real experiments, the reality of the universe out there is not independent of your views.
What I want to share with you today is that, when you take few easy steps, you can …
“Turn Your Life Around
In Less Than A Weekâ€
The problem with most manifestation guides is that they teach you all of the concepts, but none of the “meat.â€
If you’ve ever been left wondering “What do I do with all of this great information?,†you know exactly what I mean.
The truth is, most manifestation teachers don’t know how to apply what they are talking about. They don’t understand the scientific principles behind the Law of Attraction, so they can’t tell you what to do when you run into delays or problems.
After studying how the greatest achievers and miracle workers of different cultures and religions performed miracles, I put together my findings in an ebook.
When you read my ebook, you’ll see you can choose what to have and who to be in this world, from many many possible realities out there.
When you read the method that I show you, you can manifest anything you desire in your life.
This is exactly how Miracle Workers, Kahunas, and Shamans do it.
First time I came across this Method, it blew my mind and changed my life forever.
You too can…
“Create Abundance Quickly And Easily
– Like the 1% Richest People Doâ€
The greatest achievers in the history attracted abundance in all that they desired, effortlessly.Most people think they were lucky.
But here’s the news… everyone can be a miracle worker. There is a science behind it.
How is it that sometimes you can drive from office to home, without remembering how you got home?
Because, you do it subconsciously, like an autopilot.
That’s exactly how successful people attract abundance. They go through their lives and make all the right turns, effortlessly.
When you follow the steps in this method, you program yourself to achieve anything effortlessly.
How? This ebook shows you exactly “Howâ€.
In “The Secret Behind The Secretâ€, I will show you how to “Understand the science behind the Law of Attractionâ€
“When You Know
Why And How The Secret Works,
Using It Will Be Easyâ€
The greatest minds in the history knew why and how the secret works.
They knew they could change the reality of universe to manifest their most inconceivable desires into life; what ordinary people call miracles.
Here’s what the greatest physicist in the history said about this Secret…
“Reality is merely an illusion,
albeit a very persistent one.”
Albert Einstein
“Here’s What You Experience
Soon After You
Use This Method…â€
• You will start experiencing Synchronicities – Meaningful coincidences
related to what you want to manifest.
• Serendipitous events start pouring into your life – Suddenly, it seems
everyone and everything wants to help you to get you what you desire.
• People and places are suddenly so accommodating to your desires.
• Your Reality starts shifting, even though you may be around the same place
and people that you were before.
“This Book Will
Change Your Life Foreverâ€
Here’s what you will find in this book:
• The 3 Hidden Forces in you – Make them work together to make things happen
like miracle.
• 3 Habits you must adopt to change your luck starting tomorrow.
• 12 Things you must know before applying The Secret.
• 4 Major blocks to manifestations – How to blast them away for good.
But before you download the ebook you have to promise me that you:
• Use this powerful method for good only.
• Don’t kick yourself in the head wishing you had known this long time ago – Apply
it NOW. Better late than never.
“This Book Summarizes Everything
You Will Need To Know To
Manifest Your Desires In Your Lifeâ€
When you read this book, you unravel:
• The science behind The Law of Karma
• The science behind The Power of Letting Go
• The science behind Giving and Receiving
I am a scientist. I am practical and direct to the point. I look for results. So:
“If You Are Serious About The Secret
This Book Is For Youâ€
Posted on a Dyer fan site. Do the miracles he claims happen in his own life?
“Clear-thinking people might ask for some proof that Dr. Dyer’s theories have actually worked. Has Dr. Dyer been able to heal himself? Actually, a stent had to be inserted in a clogged artery when Dr. Dyer suffered a heart attack a few years ago. Has he been able to find the right people when he needs them? Actually, after twenty years of marriage and the blessings of seven children, Dr. Dyer’s wife left him for someone else. So despite Dr. Dyer’s obvious devotion to the idea that we can perform miracles, his own life actually denies the veracity of his theories.”
Source: http://wayne-dyer.inspiresyou.com/30/t-122.html
Does anyone else see the irony of Wayne Dyer’s life being saved by an arterial stent so he can go on to bad mouth modern medical practices? (Not to mention selling you the idea that you can find health through positive thought fields?)
JQP- You say of many Christians;
“Their idea of “service†is church on Sunday, asking for forgiveness on Easter, and hoping God will favor them over others.”
I have found that to be the experience of some, but would also say that it would seem very superficial and defeat the purpose of having a relationship with God aka Jesus Christ. It’s actually like an relationship, if you only see the superficial, then that is what you will get in return. But, if u actually stay with it through the deepest valleys, that is when the roots grow and strengthen.
“The more one emphasizes action over nice thoughts, the better things improve.”
I agree with this one hundred percent. It doesn’t matter who u are.
“If you were a forensic examiner and you initially had a hunch about who committed the crime, would you:
A) Allow evidence found that contradicted your hunch to change your mind?
B) Interpret the contradicting evidence as a test of your hunch and steadfastly stick to your hunch?”
I would definetely choose a. I think I have proven that by changing my mind about evolution when presented with strong factual evidence.
That is why I choose to read “The God Delusion” and even continue on this thread. I try to educate myself as best as I can and, well if I were to die before I get a grasp on the whole Jesus debate. Then I die and deal with the consequences. No harm no foul. Right?
Anyway, it’s always a pleasure. Now I gotta grill the family some steaks.
†if you only see the superficial, then that is what you will get in return. But, if u actually stay with it through the deepest valleys, that is when the roots grow and strengthen.â€
True, it was a very generalized statement on my part. I don’t doubt your faith is authentic. But does it truly carry over into real action, is always my first question. (And I don’t mean trying to convert others to your beliefs. I mean alleviating suffering and taken true action in the wider world.)
Our difference on faith, meaning between just you and me, Andrew, stems not from intentions but why we can be so certain respectively. You probably wonder why I can be so certain about my disbelief in the supernatural just as I wonder how you can be so certain of your faith. I think it is pretty well settled that we both aspire to be good citizens and do not hold ill-will toward others. (You have noted rightly and honestly that tolerance has not exactly been a hallmark of religion historically.)
The whole question between us is: what’s next? That is, are the good works a means to an end or are they whole point? Any way you slice it, the “what’s after this life†question matters significantly to how you do what you do here and, moreover, why you do it. Salvation is a core biblically-backed belief among Christians. (I would argue that it is the sole point of Christianity and everything else is a means to that end.) By definition that creates a paradox of intention and diminishes any good works. I simply don’t see any way around that logic. Salvation is the promise of reward for a good life. Period. Deliverance and redemption are just means to that end as well. That is, in the context of immortal salvation even expressing pure love of Jesus cannot be pure. It is a conflict of interest in the same way any politician on the payroll of a corporation is. Does being on the Haliburton payroll mean the VP is corrupt? No. But it doesn’t pass the “smell test,†as they say. Neither does the promise of salvation.
It is more likely salvation was invented by humans to offer a payoff in order to encourage conversion than a literal process. After all, if it truly existed and God truly sent word to earth of its existence, it makes no sense he told just a small handful of men all originating from Indo-Eurpopean cultures, mind you, (why didn’t anyone in Africa or the south pacific get word?) and no one else. “Spread the word†when no two cultures have the same word. (Oh, that’s right, you guys covered your tracks on that one with the Tower of Babel story.) It smells badly of an utter fabrication, in my opinion.
I realize that you see these tricky turns and seemingly apocryphal anecdotes as tests of faith. Your god disseminates his word in little tricky ways, makes sure everything seems uncertain, all so he can sort out who’s naughty and who’s nice. Isn’t that a little deceitful? Seems like there are two huge standards: one for God, one for us.
I mean, what if you tested your the love from your own children by never telling them directly you love them, and instead going to Asian neighbors who speak no English to tell them to spread the word to your children? Or by testing their love by leaving them home alone to fend for themselves and telling yourself, “if they still believe in me and love me after all this, then they truly do love me and I will reward them with a great life?†If you did those things, you’d be charged with child neglect and endangerment. Why? Because it’s immoral by any standard!! Thus, you believe in a double standard and, moreover, that somehow God’s behavior in this way is moral.
I do not believe you can reconcile that.
I applaud both your tolerance and reaching out. Remember, my criticisms are of ideas and motives not of us lowly individuals just trying to get from one end of life to the other. And it is not lost on me that faith can help. In fact, I don’t’ see anything wrong with that. (But I also don’t see anything wrong with someone who needs a drink now and then to get by. And I don’t mean for that comparison to be negative. I actually don’t blame anyone personally for finding something that helps them along, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else..)
You’re reading Dawkins, I’m reading the bible. There can be peace in the world after all.
I’m interested in your criticisms of Dawkins, by the way.
Believing in God or not believing is something very personal. It is something that I have contemplated most of my life. I have found that I feel better when I think there is a righteous God. And to me a righteous God doesn’t ask you to kill your only son just to see if you are loyal.(The story in Genesis involving Abraham and his son Isaac). But feelings are notoroiusly wrong and need to be backed up by evidence. And I think that proving God exists is like proving hurricanes exist.
My 9 year old daughter and I were watching the coverage of hurricane Ike on CNN before it had even hit the Texas coast. We were watching the waves crash into the seawall and the flooding that had already begun in the streets. And the rain was pelting the news reporter. And then my daughter asked me “Where’s the hurricane?”
I told her that u can’t actually see the hurricane, only the effects of the hurricane.
In the same respect, I can see the results of God in my life. And many other people’s lives as well.
In my life specifically, all of the pain from my youth, the stress of our marriage and raw anger all came to a head in November ’05. All of this emotion physically manifested itself as ulcers. They were up and down my intestines and up and down my esophagus. My doctor couldn’t believe how many I had. Stress had only physically manifested itself one other time. That was when I was going into the fifth grade. After witnessing my mothers manic episode, blisters formed on all of my fingers.
Then one month later on Christmas day, after leaving my grandparents’ house and going to my wife’s parents house, we got into an argument. It was something so ridiculously small, but everything by this time was toxic. I would come home from work and be so happy if her car wasn’t in the garage. Just being around each other was a recipe for trouble. So, we sent our kids in her parents’ house and stayed in the car to argue.
She ended up kicking me out of the car and taking off. So instead of going in their house, I went for a walk. I ended up walking all the way home, which is 16 miles away. I call it my walk of shame. Through these 3 months(nov.,dec.,jan.) I find myself praying for guidance. These 3 months are the deepest valley that I have experienced. Then in January, my wife has to have her thyroid removed since it was cancerous. I took 2 weeks of vacation to be there for her. At the end, we decided to go to Galena,Il to try to have a romantic getaway. Our idea back fires and we get into another fight that ruins the night and I sleep on the couch. My wife continues the fight and tells me to leave over and over. So I finally do. Leaving her there 2 and 1/2 hours from our house.
We did meet with a pastor from our kids’ preschool, but he didn’t help at all. Then, while I was at a super bowl party, my wife went to a restaurant with a bunch of her girlfriends from high school. And through one of her friends, she learned of a pastor who did fellowship in his home and really specialized in marriage counseling. He came to our home every monday for 6 months. And more if needed. He never asked for money even though he had 7 kids at home. We appreciated every visit and learned what it meant to take your faith in Christ very seriously.
The first verse that Mike told us to look up was Proverbs 15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Those 6 months changed my life dramatically. Mike repeatedly told us that he could not save our marriage without God’s Word. Our marriage stands as a testament just like the waves crashing along the seawall are a physical sign of a hurricane.
I’m interested in your criticisms of Dawkins, by the way.
So far, I have only read the first hundred pages. But in the preface I notice he goes on the defensive right away, which I suppose would become second nature when one wields the sword of reason as he does. I’m referring to his attack on authors who say “I used to be an atheist, but …”
He says they try to give themselves instant street cred. Which, is ironic because I always hear the argument, “I used to be Christian, but …” So, immediately I get the feeling that Dawkins is like the critic in the movie “Ratatouille”.
One other side note, I realize that there are three things that make us each who we are.
1. dna
2. our experiences
3. our decisions
Peace be with you all.
I see how your story dovetails with the opinions you’ve expressed. When you said it’s the broken man who finds God, I see you were talking in first person. There’s no argument on my part that an optimistic belief does not allow one to rise from bad circumstances. But I believe an optimistic belief in anything (as long as the individual is convinced of its reality) will have the same effect. I, too, have my optimistic beliefs. But it mostly has to do with the progress of history and civilization; humanism. The belief that worldwide cooperation achieves expected improvements in the lives of individuals. Playing a role in that progress is important to me. Therefore, I attempt to involve myself in everything I can. I pay no mind to the “other world†other than to explore the opinions of others.
Which is a major departure from Wayne Dyer’s message. (I’m taking the opportunity of this point to make another point about new age practices, so I apologize for the digression.) By taking an interest in our culture, and other cultures especially, I actually “connect†(it bugs me that new agers have added a spiritual connotation to that word; perhaps I should use “rapport†instead.) with others more frequently. That is to say, not taking an interest in sports (as Dyer and many new agers do), not taking an interest in stock market intricacies (as many new agers do), not taking an interest in economics, or mathematics, or computer science, or technology in general, or automobile engine intricacies, or basically anything considered analytical, separates you from others. Like I said, I know this is a digression from our discussion but as I segue into my story it explains my motive for my hyper activities in life. That is to say, so much of spiritual life (this those who lead a predominately spiritual life whether it’s Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, new age, or whatever, all included) actually disconnect from others.
I don’t get it. If you really want to have a rapport with humanity, then get involved in humanity and what others are interested in. Then you have more to talk about and will actually “connect†on truly a “deeper level.†Simply having an agreement about spirituality is actually a very superficial connection, in my opinion. Sharing many interesting and activities is a far superiority connection with others because you’re engaging them fully.
Thus, spirituality (in all its forms) creates a division with others because it “disconnects†with the rest of humanity in an attempt to “reconnect†with the unknowable. That is not to say the spiritually inclined don’t get along with humanity, but just that by the very decision to become more otherworldly focused they are disconnecting with the rest of humanity instead of making an attempt to join it. The busier I am, the more I enjoy—everything, especially other people. There is no subject I do not enjoy learning. Therefore, this is no discussion I do not enjoy having with others. There is no topic I consider a waste of time and no information I consider useless.
I am your living opposite, I guess. I’m simply one of those people that just has found a lot of luck in life and I don’t know why because I don’t see any rationale for it. I married once and it has been one of the most successful choices of my life. My wife and I equally built a pretty good life. I saw a lot of martial problems with my parents, and other family members, so I understand this, but it just never happened to me. In fact, I can’t recall a fight in our 31 years of marriage. I’m know we had some, as we’re not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but out-and-out fighting just never became a dynamic between us. I can’t explain why. Perhaps the only advice I can ever offer in that regard is we never demand anything of each other. We just bend with whatever the other one does. True, since the children have grown and left there have been far fewer conflicts. But those conflicts rarely if every developed into anything bigger. Again, I can’t explain it.
When I met my wife, who was previously married for a short time, she had had a tubal ligation after her first child as she didn’t think she’d have anymore kids. Well, I came along and wanted kids but it looked like it was not in the cards. Then lo and behold “we†got pregnant and, of all things, our son was born 12/25. (The religious people I worked with at the time went nuts claiming it was a miracle, or course. However, tubal ligations have a small percentage of chance failing (less than a hundredth of a percent, I believe), and, as for my son being born on Christmas day, well he later built a career in a heavy metal band so it’s probably he’s more like the anti-Christ than the second coming!! LOL!) Again, plain luck. I wanted children, my wife couldn’t have any—but then she did. Then he, too, found success. I can’t explain it.
I could go on with my story (investments, college, career, success in a field that I failed in in high school, etc.) but it seems pointless and I feel like I’m bragging. Actually, I rarely ever talk about it—especially with the religious or spiritual because I invariably get the, “there’s an angel on your shoulder,†comment or the, “how can you not believe in a loving, guiding source?†question. To both which I reply that it makes no sense I would be more deserving than anyone else. Or then does that mean Bill Gates is the most deserving person in the world?
So, those kinds of observations make no sense to me. Nothing more than my own life has convinced me in the randomness of the world. I cannot claim intellect, or gut feeling, or instinct, for the myriad of successful things that have happened to me. I’ve never been fired or laid off, I went right through college, I went straight up the career path to retirement, I hit the lottery with a couple of investments, my son went on to be a success, and I’ve married once and it will be for life. I just never found myself in a deep valley. (There’s always tomorrow, though!)
Therefore, since I believe what has happened to me happened to you: the draw of the circumstances; randomness. In fact, you’re probably more deserving of a better life than me, I don’t know. But then you may think the payoff and payback will come in the afterlife and our positions will be reversed! LOL!
But I have no fear of that as nothing can convince of the “explained†supernatural. That does not mean I don’t believe that in which we cannot see (like your hurricane comparison). It means that no description of the unknowable shows any evidence of being true or rings true for me personally. I am simply saying, no one has nailed the answer. There very well can be a whole spiritual world we can’t see, but all the explanations so far of the unknowable fall short of being reasonable. Above all, I trust my reason and so far it has not lead me astray. Perhaps that’s it: reasonable responses to all circumstances is the key. I don’t know.
JQP,
I think the formula for “success” in life (in my opinion) is:
1. Don’t expect anything from anyone or from life (or give without expecting anything in return)
2. Act instead of reacting (or “reasonable response to all circumstances”)
3. Don’t need anyone or anything but become needed by everyone and everything. You will have a successful career, financial, and personal life.
4. Be in charge of educating yourself. Expose yourself to real life and never stop reading and growing.
5. Be a critical thinker. Evaluate yourself and your experiences and improve yourself.
I am not stating anything new here.
These are just some of the ingredients. I don’t have the time to elaborate extensively but if you examine your life you will see that you have implemented the formula as much as you could.
The problem is that most people have read and know this but have not been able to implement all of them.
I think to be “successful” you need to implement all of them. If you do some and not the others then the effect will be diminished.
It would be interesting if we could put a more complete list together and evaluate the pros and cons of each statement.
JQP,
Here is something interesting I came across.
Just FYI, just sharing information.
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0809&RELTYPE=PHOT&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=JZ&CommonCount=0
In fact, you’re probably more deserving of a better life than me,
I hope I haven’t given the impression that my life is awful, because it is truly wonderful. And that is why I veer my thinking towards God. Not becuase I am more deserving than someone else, but because I feel that I could not have accomplished the success that I have on my own. And maybe I am selling myself short, since I too believe in pulling ones self up by the proverbial boot straps. My wife have accomplished much and are able to help others out even while we raise our three kids during this economic crisis.
And I look at what my wife and I have. I see the wind blowing in the trees and waves crashing into the seawall.
Peace brothers and sisters.
“I hope I haven’t given the impression that my life is awful…”
No, but you’ve certainly seen harder times than me. On one hand, I applaud you for emerging with a positive attitude and having the wherewithal to pull it all together. I doubt I could do the same. On the other hand, your image of a loving God in the face of these troubles baffles me. It’s rather like a father who abuses his child and child claims to everyone, “yeah, he’s all loving, that dad!” Which is quite different than just forgiving the father. If you forgave God for some of your unfortunate circumstances, I would understand because it is acknowledging that it wasn’t right to allow happen in the first place. But then that doesn’t fit with the idea that it is all part of a *perfect* and divine plan, which I believe you think it is.
But then it also baffles me that some can view leukemia as part of a perfect plan and rationalize it as we just don’t know any better. Equating it as if we’re dogs who don’t understand why they need a leash to be protected. Only God knows why he strikes people with sickening terror, which, of course, is for their own good in the end.
Further, I think those who claim that don’t actually believe that. Otherwise heaven would also have leukemia and still be considered “perfect.” But every description I hear about the afterlife, Christian or otherwise, invariably lacks disease, pain and suffering. (Yet those things are always part of the perfect plan.) If the bad things that happen to us are elements of “perfect” and “divine” plans, then it must also be a part of the “perfection” that is heaven. So, which is it? Are those bad things part of “divine perfection” or not? If they are, then there’s disease, pain and suffering in heaven, too.
I suspect some would answer that with, “they’re prefect in that they teach us things that perfect us personally.” Really? What part of striking an eight year old with leukemia teaches him perfection? How can that possibly be the “perfect plan” of a “loving” being?
It can’t and it’s not. The “divine” plan is a human creation hatched from the human desire for universal significance and immortality. It is hard to accept we’re an infinitesimally small speck in an odd corner of a vastly empty universe that won’t last forever. The only thing we do that has significance it what we do for each other for the short time we’re here. The more one can accept that morality is for humans alone and there’s no magical creatures playing a role it all, the more moral it actually becomes. Doing the right thing when realizing it’s in the face of an indifferent abyss that gives no thanks takes far more courage than thinking one has universal power on their side as a result.
Andrew, just a point of clarification on the above. Being thankful or even grateful during trying circumstances doesn’t baffle me; believing it’s all for the best during trying circumstances doesn’t baffle me either. My comment is about the constructed imagery that it is the work of an all loving god. That’s what baffles me. Specifically, how anyone can conjure that particular image in the face of overwhelming contritions. It can be nothing more than denial.
“Contradictions” not contritions, by the way.
What part of striking an eight year old with leukemia teaches him perfection? How can that possibly be the “perfect plan†of a “loving†being?
As I may have said before, my wife is a cancer care nurse. So, I witness the destruction of disease on the body through her. She brings home stories of pain and suffering that seem cruel and unjust. These people do not deserve this pain and I don’t think I could ever justify it as part of “God’s plan.” To me, that would be a slap in the face. In fact, in the book of Job, his friends tell him that it is a part of God’s plan for him to suffer and that if he doesn’t repent of what he is hiding, the suffering will continue.
When in fact, they should have been encouraging Job, Not convicting him. Suffering can be productive, like purifying gold, it can be used to remove the impurities. But, the suffering of an innocent child or adult seems to produce little results other than more suffering. Unless, and I’m just spit ballin’ here, it fits into my hurricane example. Where the child or adult suffering is able to accept his or her fate with courage and love for their God. They are able to stand upright in the middle of the storm that has become their life.
Peace be with us all
Read the article, Zer0. Interesting but I’m not sure of the significance other than it’s applications.
IF I believed in God I would rationalize the pain and suffering in us and around us as a demonstration that we are doing something really wrong. We have contaminated our environment so badly that our children are suffering with diseases and life threatening ailments. I would think that God was punishing us for our wrongdoings to the planet and to each other.
The suffering of the child is not intended to teach the child something, it is intended for all of us around the suffering child to realize our wrongdoing.
For me it’s all about cause and effect, action and reaction. In that equation there is no need for the “God” variable. It’s a very simple equation and therefore very powerful and unchanging. If I had a need for a concept of God I would say that this is what God stands for. It gives us the freedom to act but also holds us accountable for our actions by serving us the reactions of our actions. So it would seem that God is punishing us but in reality we are punishing ourselves and our offsprings, our present and our future.
It’s hard to see the connection if we see ourselves separate from each other and the environment around us. But if we realize that we are one with each other and the environment then it will make sense.
Collectively we are all guilty and we deserve the suffering that we are served. We have created this hell and we deserve to suffer in it. I blame those who have sold the concept of going to heaven after dying and those who have bought the concept and believe in it. If instead it was preached that we need to unite and turn this hell into heaven than we would all leave in a better world without pain and suffering.
Religion has caused more damage than done good. It has shifted the focus from the present (reality) to the uncertain future (fantasy). Billions of people are leaving in a world of fantasy ignoring the real problems at present that need immediate solutions.
Somehow we need to bring them out of that trans before they die and find themselves right back in this hell, screaming from the shock.
Enough said. We need action, wise action.
“Religion has caused more damage than done good. It has shifted the focus from the present (reality) to the uncertain future (fantasy).”
What I meant by uncertain future is the promise of heaven. It’s just a promise. It has not been confirmed so it’s an imaginary future, it’s a fantasy.
“Suffering can be productive, like purifying gold, it can be used to remove the impurities.”
So you’re saying that abused children who’s circumstances help make them into criminals later in life are so because they did not face their “fate” (meaning inflicted by your god) with courage?? Again, how is this a system of a loving god? You can’t really believe that because there is no way you’d abuse your own children and expect them to face it with courage. You would not do the same.
Again, God gets a get out of jail free card in your logic because of your insistence that if he exists, he must be pure by definition and therefore any tragedies he creates are automatically justified. It’s backwards logic.
In your scenario God can mistreat anyone he wants in any way he wants because you rationalize it to be good no matter what. Yet under all other circumstances it would be highly immoral. Therefore, you’re actually buying into moral relativism, which Christian theology completely abhors. That is, moral action is relative to who and why they’re doing it. The only difference is to you is if an invisible unknowable force is producing the otherwise immoral action, it’s okay. Basically, God does not have to live by his own 10 commandments. So, why can’t that same moral relativism be applied to people in the Christian view? Why do they then insist on an absolute moral code for all people in all circumstances and offer no leniency towards things like gay marriage? God can strike down little children with leukemia and it’s all good, but a same sex relationship? That’s immoral!
The way your argument is presented it is like rationalizing Charles Manson’s murders. You could apply the exact same reasoning you’re using here to Manson.
“The suffering of the child is not intended to teach the child something, it is intended for all of us around the suffering child to realize our wrongdoing.”
So, children suffering from cholera in undeveloped parts of the world happened to remind *you* of your wrongdoing. First, what did you do wrong that is in the causal chain that created the cholera? And, secondly, what are you doing about it?
Let me ask you, Andrew: Does your god–or what is believed to be an existing force even though no two people can agree on what it is, what its will is, what it has said and who it said it to–set an example such that we should follow? Is God the ultimate example of moral action?
Of course, you see where I’m going. If so, then I can induce your children with leukemia and be perfectly in accord with God’s example of moral action.
To Zero’s point:
â€Religion has caused more damage than done good. It has shifted the focus from the present (reality) to the uncertain future (fantasy).â€
â€Somehow we need to bring them out of that trans before they die and find themselves right back in this hell, screaming from the shock.â€
So, religion created a fantasy (presumably you’re referring to the afterlife) yet when “they†die (only the religious?) “they†will be going to hell–presumably those who are of Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs, since it is those religions that we associate with the view of “hell.†But I’m not sure how you apply your point to the beliefs of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddists, Sikhism, Juche, Baha’i, Jainism, Ch’ondogyo, Shinto, Wonbulgyo, Vodoun, Cao Dai, Seicho-No-Ie, Falun Gong, Roma, Chinese beliefs, Rastafariansim, Scientology, not to mention ancient belief systems such as the Carthaginians, Greeks, Hittites, Sumarians, Celts, and Druids? Are the African diasporic religions included your point? How do they all fit into what you’re saying?
If Christianity’s explanations of the otherworld are a fantasy then how is it they will wind up in a non-existent place? Does this not seem contradictory to you? And how do “they†(I’m not sure why you mean only the religious and not others) wind up “right back†somewhere you described as a fantasy? Or is this a tacit endorsement of reincarnation and you mean right back on earth?
And what exactly is it about our world that is such a living hell? While I argue that the natural system’s violent order cannot reflect a non-violent designer, that does not mean I think the world is a living hell. Out of the 6 billion people on the planet, a vast majority live well thanks the secularization of mankind over the centuries.
How can you compare the conditions today to that of a 1,000 years ago and not say we’ve made astounding improvements in life extension, quality of life, minimization of suffering, tolerance, and leisure activities?
“Collectively we are all guilty and we deserve the suffering that we are served.”
How so? Did you contribute to the world’s suffering? I didn’t. I’ve spent a number of years now trying to alleviate it.
“Religion has caused more damage than done good.”
You’re only thinking of organized religions. Of course, there is an element to that I agree with, but it is so generalized that (no qualifications or clarity) that I could argue either way. For example, I could list dozens of religions that caused no damage whatsoever. For example, what damage has Buddhism caused? Or Zoroastrianism? They’re peaceful practices and attempt to convert no one.
“If I had a need for a concept of God I would say that this is what God stands for. It gives us the freedom to act but also holds us accountable for our actions by serving us the reactions of our actions.”
I sort of get what you’re going after here, but what your piece really says is if you found the need for a god then you’d image a guiding force. That’s sort of like saying if was going to have an imaginary friend he’d have red hair. It has no significance to anyone else because it’s your imagination. So, it really makes no argument other that how you might conjure your own images.
I think what you really mean is if there *is* a god (not if you constructed one, but if one happened to exist against your better sense) it seems reasonable that it would be a guiding force that holds us accountable through its own responses. You’re making the behavior modification argument: God would modify our behavior through his own actions based on his own judgment. Only thing is, that is exactly what Christianity says: heaven and hell are reward and punishment, which is an “reaction to our actions” in your description.
” But if we realize that we are one with each other and the environment then it will make sense.”
This is an attempt to claim a universal truth. The same one, in fact, that Dyer drones on about. While it’s a nice thought, how do you back it? When you say “we’re one” I don’t think you mean we’re “all alike” (which means we’re still separate but have similar attributes). I think you mean we’re all universally connected through either a metaphysical force or even an unseen physical bond. (Like electricity? Why not light waves? Why not acceleration, which is indistinguishable from gravity? Why not water, which all life possesses? All of which are too simplistic to really have any meaning.)
But since that is complete speculation on your part, it is dishonest to state it as a fact. If someone is speculating then the only honest thing to do is say so.
I would agree that a general cooperative attitude in the world would get better results. Absolutely. And that treating others like you’d want to be treated is in a way acting as if we’re one. Sure. But to say, “we’re all one” or “we’re all connected” is a leap in thought that is not backed by anything concrete. Nor does its realization have any particular usefulness, and that’s my main point here. That is, suppose one could conduct an experiment to positively prove if our “oneness” existed or not. If the test proved beyond a doubt we are not connected, then we should act differently? Of course not. No, acting in a cooperative manner is still more productive than not. On the other hand, if the test proves we are indeed one then it just supports the idea of worldwide cooperation. Either way it changes nothing about the results of cooperation. So, “realizing our oneness” is neither factual nor useful.
In fact, Zer0, I would say your comment about “oneness” is a common naive belief that if we all had the same realization (in your case, all realizing we’re one) this would convince everyone to suddenly start working out our differences and all would be well. That is the same belief Christianity has and what they think the second coming will produce: we’ll all fall in line with the mass realization that they were right about Jesus. In fact, every believer of anything thinks that; “if the whole world believed as I do the world would come together and our major differences would be solved.” That is also exactly what Hitler thought. He actually thought that by exterminating the Jewish population from the earth we’d all have a peaceful existence. He even produced art showing the tranquility of the world he sought to create.
So, that comment really adds nothing to the debate because everyone thinks that of their own beliefs. And, actually, it’s true. If everyone all had the same realization (say it was Christ, or Allah, or Buddha, or Shiva, or “the source,” or L. Ron Hubbard, or “oneness”) then of course it would be a peaceful existence because a single source of universal truth would reveal itself and change what we know. But then that just conveniently evades the real challenge of life, doesn’t it? The trick is not to make everyone realize the same thing one do and, basically, all become clones. The trick is to create peacefulness with all our differences intact. My railing on religion is to get it out of the decision making process of the political world. In fact, to get it out of the decision making process altogether and remove it from its protected unassailable status that it currently enjoys. But that is not same as converting others to my own realizations or my way of thinking. I have no desire to live in a world of clones. I just think religion needs a rest from being in charge so long. As you seem to agree with, it doesn’t have a great track record for resolving problems.
This piece is from another site:
The Absurdity of Religion
Why is it that if I claim that the keyboard, I’m typing this on, regularly turns into green cheese from the planet Krypton, then everyone will call me insane, but if someone claims that the bread they are eating and the wine they are drinking are turning into the flesh and blood of a guy born of a virgin, who is his own father, and who rose from the dead 2000 years ago, then he’s called a Catholic and should be respected for his faith?
When an absurd belief is labelled religious, then it suddenly isn’t considered absurd any more. This seems pretty weird to me, and let’s face it, most religions are based on beliefs that really are silly. A typical example of this is the story of the Ten Commandments.
In this story God calls Moses to Mount Sinai to give him the divine will about human conduct. God then lets Moses walk up the mountain, down again and up once more, before giving him the Ten Commandments. Afterwards the tablets with the commandments are broken, and Moses must ascend the mountain yet again, to get a new copy. Now imagine yourself in Moses’ place. You have climbed three times to the top a tall mountain enshrouded in clouds and lightning to receive the divine guidance of the almighty God, and then it turns out that he can’t remember his own commandments and therefore makes up some completely new ones, while claiming that they are exactly the same. And to make matters worse the tenth commandment is “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk†(Exo 23:19). That is the guidance that God in his infinite wisdom wants to give us? We can’t cook a goat in the milk of its mother?
Can anyone really look me in the eyes and with a straight face say that this story wouldn’t be considered plain silly, if it wasn’t a religious story? In my opinion it could have been taken straight out of a Monty Python sketch.
Of course being silly or absurd doesn’t rule out existence, but it doesn’t seem to be likely attributes of a being with infinite wisdom.
JQP, I see that you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I admit that it is my fault, because I don’t elaborate and explain my points in the detail that you do. This is just due to the fact that I can’t afford to put in as much time as you can.
But let me clarify some of my points.
“The suffering of the child is not intended to teach the child something, it is intended for all of us around the suffering child to realize our wrongdoing.â€
So, children suffering from cholera in undeveloped parts of the world happened to remind *you* of your wrongdoing. First, what did you do wrong that is in the causal chain that created the cholera? And, secondly, what are you doing about it?
Comment by JohnQPublic — 10/4/2008
The children are suffering from cholera because of unsanitary environment that they live in. If WE (I include everyone and myself) did something about the environment that these children live in then the children wouldn’t suffer from cholera. Maybe you don’t consider yourself guilty of not addressing this issue because you are doing something about other similar issues at other places. But I consider myself and everyone else guilty because such conditions still exist at many places. The guilt is not in causing the condition, but it is in not correcting the condition. My guilt is in that I have not done anything about it. And so is guilty everyone else who becomes aware of a problem and does nothing to correct it. I think you are guilty as well. Have you addressed ALL of the problems around you and in the world? If you think you are off the hook just because you are getting involved in some of the battles then you are wrong. For me you are still guilty.
To Zero’s point:
â€Religion has caused more damage than done good. It has shifted the focus from the present (reality) to the uncertain future (fantasy).â€
â€Somehow we need to bring them out of that trans before they die and find themselves right back in this hell, screaming from the shock.â€
What I meant here is: if they believe in Heaven and Hell or something similar, then compared to what Heaven is supposed to be like we are living in a sort of hell. There is suffering, injustice, pain, and everything else that does not exist in Heaven. I do not believe in fantasy. You wrongfully assumed that I believe in Hell or similar and was suggesting that they would die and return to hell. My only point here was that if someone believes in fantasy of God, Heaven, Hell and reincarnation then when they reincarnate they would be back here on this world which is a lot more like hell than it is like heaven.
The other religions that you mentioned were not included in my critique.
“Collectively we are all guilty and we deserve the suffering that we are served.â€
How so? Did you contribute to the world’s suffering? I didn’t. I’ve spent a number of years now trying to alleviate it.
Comment by JohnQPublic — 10/5/2008 #
Yes I have contributed to the world’s suffering and so have you. Are you saying that you have responded to all instances of injustice, suffering, etc? In my opinion if you don’t extend a helping hand to someone in need then you are contributing to their suffering. Not knowing about someones suffering is not an excuse for lack of action. We have the obligation to learn about all problems faced by all of the inhabitants of this world and do everything we can to solve them.
I am starting to see why you are having issues with my comments. I think you consider yourself separate from and above everyone else. Just because you are doing something to alleviate some hardships you feel that you have earned a clear conscious and have no guilt. You have earned your place in “heaven” already 🙂 Congratulations JQP.
Have you not realized yet that you can not accomplish much by yourself? Yes you can help a village here, a tribe there but that’s about it. I respect you for that, you are doing more than most and myself. But to achieve substantial results we need to multiply your efforts billions of times. Every one of us must get involved and care about the well being of this world and it’s inhabitants. It needs to be a collective and unified effort. This is the type of oneness I am referring to. I am not talking about religious oneness or becoming clones. The realization should be that we do not exist without having an effect on each other and the environment around us. If I poison my river not only I am poisoning myself but I am also poisoning you because we share the same river. My actions and lack of actions have reactions beyond my immediate self. The reactions effect “innocent bystanders” as well. We are one by our inter-actions, inter-reactions, and inter-dependence. So you, I, and everyone else is guilty for the suffering of the child.
“Have you addressed ALL of the problems around you and in the world?”
Have you addressed any?
That’s a ridiculous point, zer0. People have limited resources so they do what they can. Measuring them on fixing it all is just not an argument grounded in reality. Guilt means responsibility. You’re redefining the term for your own rhetorical purposes. If you didn’t cause it, you’re not guilty. Inaction in the face of tragedy is guilt (which is not what you’re describing), but you cannot be guilty of something you have no knowledge of. The question is: have you done what you can with what resources you have? You probably do nothing, is my guess. You make arguments but never get out and really help anyone. So, I may not be fixing *everything* (which is an absurd position), but I’m most likely higher than you on that yardstick.
You’re argument just have no basis in reason. It’s as if you’re saying you’re guilty of a murder half way across the world that you had no knowledge of because you didn’t do something about it. That’s off-the-chart silliness.
“Religion has caused more damage than done good.â€
You’re only thinking of organized religions. Of course, there is an element to that I agree with, but it is so generalized that (no qualifications or clarity) that I could argue either way. For example, I could list dozens of religions that caused no damage whatsoever. For example, what damage has Buddhism caused? Or Zoroastrianism? They’re peaceful practices and attempt to convert no one.
Comment by JohnQPublic — 10/5/2008 #
JQP, sometimes you take my statements out of context and criticize them. The questionable statement above was followed by “It has shifted the focus from the present (reality) to the uncertain future (fantasy).” My comment was intended for all religions that ignore reality and replace it with fantastic stories that can not be demonstrated. It is a practice of deception. If I was selling a pill today that I promised would cure all of your diseases on the day you were about to die but the catch was that it wouldn’t work prior to that day and when you take this pill you have to live the rest of your life in a place called Nevaeh that no one knows where it is. How many people would buy it? You don’t have to worry about how you live your life today, you can abuse your body and mind as you please but on the last day you take this pill and you are healthier and happier than you have ever been and you live in this fantastic place called Nevaeh.
I think there would be a very few who would take the gamble but most people would see right through my sales pitch. And it doesn’t matter how much this pill costs because you may loose a dollar but you would lose something much more precious, your health and well being for the rest of your life.
I don’t understand why someone would be so much more concerned about losing a few dollars but not as concerned about loosing their sense of reality.
I don’t know how well I was able to illustrate my point about shifting the focus from reality to fantasy.
I’m sure if you get the point you can come up with a better illustration.
“The question is: have you done what you can with what resources you have? You probably do nothing, is my guess. You make arguments but never get out and really help anyone. So, I may not be fixing *everything* (which is an absurd position), but I’m most likely higher than you on that yardstick.”
JQP, you just proved my suspicion that you consider yourself higher than me or anyone else for that matter. You have a superiority complex. I think you help others just so you can brag about it and feel that you are more “worthy” than others. You use your good deeds as a defensive and offensive weapon against others. You are no different than the people you criticize. If you really helped others for no other reason than helping, you wouldn’t fixate on it and bring it up every chance you had. You don’t know anything about me or what I have done or do. And I’m not going to sink to your level and start bragging about my deeds.
I am trying to talk about concepts that are larger than the self but you are shifting the discussion to yourself, like a little kid trying to score points by telling the teacher that you fed your dog and your friend didn’t feed his cat.
I have told you before that you try too hard to be the center of attention. Get over it. I am not competing with you for any trophies. You can have them all. I don’t need to satisfy my ego by hearing words of praise or being looked up to. Most of the time I am the only one who knows what has been done. I just enjoy seeing the positive results from the deed, if I am still around to see it.
Sometimes you get so stuck on technicalities that you completely miss the point. I also think that you use the technicalities as a defense because you don’t want to face the issue or lack the proper argument.
How so? Did you contribute to the world’s suffering? I didn’t. I’ve spent a number of years now trying to alleviate it.
And all of your trying will alleviate nothing. You may find yourself one day crying out in frustration. Because all of your hard work and effort is in vain. I know, I also try to alleviate suffering for other people along with my wife. On Father’s day, my wife bought 80 dollars worth of groceries for a friend whose husband spent their grocery money on drugs. Then that night, another nurse she works with was suffering from “the baby blues”, so my wife stayed with her and her baby all night so she could sleep.
While all of this effort is commendable, nothing will ever compare to God’s grace.
Proverbs 1:23 If you had responded to my rebuke,
I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you.
But since you rejected me when I called and noone gave heed when I stretched out my hand, Since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster……28″Then they will call to me, but I will not answer.”
When I read this, it seemed a little harsh. I mean, if God says He loves us all then why would He laugh at our disaster. But, I think it really applies here because we tend to seek God at our lowest point to relieve our suffering. For instance, if u had an awful vomitting experience as a child and the dry heaves became so unbearable that in an instant u said to yourself,
“God, please help get me through this and I’ll be good from now on.” Those are the times that many people seek God and then give no more thought until next time they find the need. Thereby never filling their heart with the Word. But, had they actively sought the Word of God, disaster and calamity would be no match.
OK, JQP- you said your son is in a heavy metal band. I listen to some heavy metal. You know, back in the day, when I was in the middle of teen angst my favorite bands were Metallica, Megadeth, and Anthrax. Along with Rage Against the Machine, Ministry(ironic), and Nirvana. And many others.
So you’re saying that abused children who’s circumstances help make them into criminals later in life are so because they did not face their “fate†(meaning inflicted by your god) with courage??
Children + abuse = criminals only exist in the world of people who love to make excuses for their actions. IF that same child who was abused( and I speak from experience) seeks God rather than revenge then they don’t become criminals. They actually become what people like to call good taxpaying citizens. When I say I have experience, I also mean that my wife was sexually abused by a neighbor as a little girl. And my little brother suffered through the same hell as me, but he chose to blame my parents for everything in his life still today. And he can’t even hold a job for more than 6 months.
Also, I tried to point out 2 different types of suffering. The suffering of children with leukemia is different than the suffering that my grandparents went through after my grandfather had an affair in the ’70s.
Peace
“Children + abuse = criminals only exist in the world of people who love to make excuses for their actions.”
I think you make a valid point on self-responsibility. But it’s in entirely the wrong context. Abused children do not make “excuses” to their varying reactions to abuse. They respond with the complexity of human beings. Moreover, research does not support your point or your experience. It is dangerous to linearly extrapolate from a first person experience to the experience and environmental dynamics of others. If I did the same as you are doing here, a major source of my sister-in-law’s mental breakdown came from the exposures to radical holy roller churches as a child. That experience confused her as an adult and set her up for failure because of how she thought of God and relationship to the other people. In fact, it is clear that the exposure to that kind of snake-handling worshipers played a major role in her breakdown. And if I did what you’re doing, make an unsupportable generalization of it, then I could argue that religion is the main the source of mental breakdowns. But it’s not. It was simply one of many problems in this individual’s life. You cannot accurately compare your specific reactions to the circumstances of everyone else. That’s dangerous ground to tread because of it’s one-size-fits-all mentality. Our entire constitution and legal is built precisely because one size does not fit all when it comes to criminals.
And the “world” is not making excuses as there is are clear and well documented cases (thousands) of established causal relationships between abuse and latent criminal behavior. It is unrealistic to believe that there would be as many criminals in prison without child abuse. More than 95% of those in state prisons experienced abuse as children. That kind of number is not making an excuse.
Unfortunately, you’ve bought into conservative ideology that believes in absolute good and evil people and that evil people will be evil no matter what even if they were never abused. Nonsense. Do you really believe people are born evil and are not products of their social context? That abuse strengthens an individual? So, why not then send all our children to abuse centers so we can start producing better adults??
Of course we’re products of our upbringings. More often than not abuse to a small child will create an individual who is not well-adjusted and is distrustful of society. Why wouldn’t they be distrustful after what they experienced? Violence begets more violence. What is hard to understand about that?
In fact, the data is so overwhelming that it is not really an argument. I studied sociology, and that covers criminal behavior, in college and my brother has a degree in criminology and is a homicide detective now. The link between child abuse and latent criminal behavior is undeniable. It doesn’t take much to understand that if you’re beat and abused as a child your chances of becoming a well-adjusted adult is less than 50%.
Abstract:
Research has shown that victimization as a child can negatively impact adult behavior and often has long-term psychological effects (Briere, 1995). Survivors of abuse, whether physical, sexual, or verbal, may express their emotional pain inappropriately. The human brain develops mechanisms to cope with trauma (Hyman, 1999) including self-harm, dissociation, mental illness, substance use and criminal activity. This research examines the psychosocial histories and Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) (Briere, 1995) dissociation and impared self-reference subscales of 150 female offenders. This research could lead to a better understanding of female criminality and may impact treatment options utilized in correctional facilities.
According to a National Institute of Justice study, abused and neglected children were 11 times more likely to be arrested for criminal behavior as a juvenile, 2.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent and criminal behavior as an adult, and 3.1 times more likely to be arrested for one of many forms of violent crime (juvenile or adult) (English, Widom, & Brandford, 2004).
How can you call those numbers “excuses?”
“Sometimes you take my statements out of context and criticize them.”
I did not mean to decontextualize your point. It just wasn’t clear to me.
But I do get your point now. You’re saying the promise of a pain free perfect existence in another life encourages neglect in this life. Correct?
Agreed. In fact, I’ve made that same point a number of times in this blog. It is a point that world history professors make all the time: the focus on otherworldly existence in the middle ages and its corollary problems is what stands in stark contrast to the renaissance and its celebration of this life.
But it’s more than just a focus on time and a better existence. The point is Christianity sees this life as nothing more than a testing ground for the next. That’s really at the crux of the matter. This life is just not the important one in their view and, thus, does not deserve focus. So, you’re point makes it seem like an artifact or is incidental to the “sales pitch.” The real point to grasp here is the insignificance religion gives to this life. So, it is deliberate and not incidental to other goals. Andrew even revealed that a bit when he once wrote, what is another 5 or 10 years of life?
So, we’re in agreement, and I apologize for decontextualizing your point.
“you just proved my suspicion that you consider yourself higher than me or anyone else for that matter.”
No, I believe I do more than than you and most in terms of helping. There’s a difference. That is not the same as thinking I’m better. I do not.
“I have told you before that you try too hard to be the center of attention. Get over it. I am not competing with you for any trophies.”
What?? No! I want you to get off your ass and go do some charity work. You bitch about the world as a “hell” and do nothing about it. (What does that say about you?)
That’s my point. How can I make it any clearer? It has nothing to do with “trophies.” What attention do I get exactly? You’ve got to be kidding! Are you delusional? I just use my own example to try and get you to actually do something about the problems we talk about. I merely cite that I do as I say and I don’t ask anyone otherwise. What’s wrong with that?
“The real point to grasp here is the insignificance religion gives to this life.”
We are in full agreement JQP.
“No, I believe I do more than than you and most in terms of helping.”
This is something you believe, it is not a fact. You are speculating and making assumptions.
I am not interested in arguing with you about this point. It is already clear for me as to the type of “helper” you are. If it will make you happy I will state loud and clear: Yes JQP is doing the most in terms of helping. He is doing much, much, much more than I or anyone else. He is the champion that we should look up to and follow. He is THE MAN.
I hope I have pleased your EGO now.
“What?? No! I want you to get off your ass and go do some charity work. You bitch about the world as a “hell†and do nothing about it. (What does that say about you?)”
Once again you are making assumptions and ignorant statements. You have no idea about what I have done or do now.
“I just use my own example to try and get you to actually do something about the problems we talk about.”
You are so full of yourself. If you think that you are a good example for someone to follow you must be delusional. How many people have followed you so far? With your attitude you have discouraged more people than encouraged.
“I merely cite that I do as I say and I don’t ask anyone otherwise.”
Yeah, right. You should get a second opinion.
When you are done talking about what a great example you are and the significance of your charitable contributions and want to discuss concepts larger than JQP, let me know.
Unlike you I don’t get a rush from attacking people on personal level. But if I have to I will strike.
Andrew even revealed that a bit when he once wrote, what is another 5 or 10 years of life?
I don’t believe this life is insignificant. If it were, then we would not be here. JQP said that, “Christianity treats this life as a sort of proving round.” And that heaven and hell are our reward or punishment.
I have said in the past that we are called to be in this world, but not of this world. So it is true that we are not to follow the deciet of man, which is everywhere, but focus on the teachings of Christ. Heaven may be our reward after death, but that is not entirely true that we should focus on heaven. For if we were to focus on heaven then we would be in heaven. We are called to be the light and the salt of the world. Here and now. Focus on saving your brother and neighbor. God says how can u love me but hate your brother when you have seen your brother but have not seen me. Give reasons for the hope that we have.
So again, you say religion, and by religion I assume you mean Christianity, deems this life insignificant. I say, How can that be if we are here? In fact, I have given u a few examples of how we act in this life. Just because I say what is 5 or ten more years? Or minutes? This life is very significant. I just believe that an extension on this life is no where near as wonderful as an early start would be in heaven.
Unfortunately, you’ve bought into conservative ideology that believes in absolute good and evil people and that evil people will be evil no matter what even if they were never abused.
As a Christian, I believe people are not evil, sin is evil. Evil can tempt the most pious. It is the reason a minister should not console the opposite sex alone. Because its temptation. Doesn’t mean something will happen, but that the seed for adultery may be planted. Just like the abuse of a child will plant the seed of violence. Doesn’t mean it will but that it is most likely.
BUT, Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. There is no substitute.
Peace
“I don’t believe this life is insignificant.”
Then let me rephrase my point: Christian theology teaches that the afterlife is more important than this life. It is standing before God’s judgment that is more important that our earthly desires. That is my point. Earthly life in that context is not all that significant except how it relates to judgment after death. So, it is a relative insignificance I’m talking about not an absolute. I’m not saying you don’t care about life, I’m saying you seem to care more about what an imaginary figure might think of you than what this life–a wonderful existence and a wonderful period in history to be in–has to offer.
You’ve made a decision to throw away the one life you happen to receive for the hollow promises of long-dead superstitious men who had no understanding of their universe.
Understand that by “throw away” I mean forfeit a large percentage of your life participating in silly rituals that can bring no more results than a rain dance or throwing salt over your shoulder. You’ve decided to obsess yourself and commit your life to something that is no different that a shaman warding off evil spirits by shaking sticks at the victim. The chances that Christ is truth (what does that even mean? He wrote nothing.) has no more basis in fact than Baal-Hammon is truth. You’ve just chosen a different superstition.
It is a trade off. Otherworld vs. this one. You sacrifice time that you could be using to make this life better–which is real, here, and addressable.
You’ve been sold an insurance policy that will never pay. And you make payments each and every Sunday.
Andrew, I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to say that you probably look forward to a heavenly existence over this one. Therefore, you’re taking your eye off what is real and knowable. Any time you take your eye off what is real and knowable for what is unknowable you’re gambling with what you have for someone else’s promise. That is the whole point I’m making here. Zer0 is making the same point.
So, am I making that point to change your mind? No, I’m too old and know all too well that’s not realistic. Nor would I even want to. It is important to me that you have the freedom to believe as you wish. I know your faith gives you hope and contentment and in that sense you don’t see it as giving anything up. I understand.
My point is to bring clarity and illuminate what is really going on; to define it in terms different than your own because I see truth in logic and reasoning and I am simply sharing that truth. This truth, the fact that religion is ultimately about trading this world for the next, is real, obvious and does not rely on suspending our innate understanding of things to get it.
So, I share my point because I don’t understand how you can defy your own innate sense of reasoning. That part, that defiance, is a mystery to me. Not the comfort or hope that you experience, but the deliberate denial of what you know in order to achieve that comfort. If it were any other belief than organized religion, despite your contentment, it would be considered delusional and be treated as a mental illness. (Like someone who finds comfort in an imaginary friend that talks to them and guides their decisions.) That brings a curiosity factor with it for me: how can someone delude themselves so much as to begin to diminish the focus on life–this one that is here and now? That I cannot understand as I relish life and treat it as something that will end, which when you think about it is the safest bet of all.
Therefore, you’re taking your eye off what is real and knowable.
You don’t think it is possible that looking at the reward could enhance the present struggle?
“You don’t think it is possible that looking at the reward could enhance the present struggle?”</i?
No. For the most part I see reward in the activity itself, not in a payoff for myself at the end. In fact, it makes the struggle seem more like a struggle when your eye is on “when it all ends.”. Children look for the constant payoff. Maturity teaches us to manage difficulties by staying focused on them and seeing them through carefully, not hurrying to the finish line.
If you have a huge house you have to build, the focus on finishing the job makes the job seem longer not to mention makes its workmanship inferior. On the other, focusing on each detail as it occurs creates a better final product and doesn’t make the job seem so intolerable. Focusing on what is in front of you rather than getting it over with always produces better work and higher levels of tolerance.
If you really want to alleviate the difficulties of daily struggle, focus on each detail of the struggle, get your mind off the end game, and it will instantly get better. Get involved with life. When your mind is on each play of the game, when you’re fully involved in each individual task, the struggle lessens. That is, learn to love the struggle (you really have no choice as it is simply a condition of life), and then you will own it and master it rather than it owning you. When you’re in charge, the struggle is not even really a struggle anymore. As long as you’re hoping for something better in the end, or letting imaginary figures control your life, you cannot be fully engaged.
“When you are done talking about what a great example you are and the significance of your charitable contributions…”
It’s true I’ll never be the great example you’ve shown to be.
“You’ve been sold an insurance policy that will never pay. And you make payments each and every Sunday.”
JQP, I like the way you stated it.
Zer0, what is this up and down thing we have going on? On one hand you think I’m a pompous ass gloating over my accomplishments and craving attention. On the other, we share similar views. It’s kind of an enigma to me. What gives?
“When you are done talking about what a great example you are and the significance of your charitable contributions…â€
It’s true I’ll never be the great example you’ve shown to be.
Comment by JohnQPublic — 10/8/2008 #
JQP, let’s put this quarrel behind us. We are two adults acting like children. There is no benefit in going any further. I would rather leave our egos out of discussion. It’s always our ego that gets us into trouble.
I would rather discuss with you real and important issues. We have our differences but we are alike more than you think.
I have a proposal. We keep arguing about what the rights and wrongs are with religion, Dyer, our thinking, etc. What are we trying to accomplish?
I think we should put together a “manual” of best practices for successful living. Something that can be given to someone who is just starting in this journey called life, to put them on a path that will lead to higher vistas.
We would evaluate and analyze each “commandment” for it’s practicality, ease of application, importance, etc, then rank it in the overall listing.
This may be the wrong blog to do it at. Or maybe not.
This is just an idea that needs further clarification and definition. But I think this would be a worthy project to do and you could spearhead it and compile it.
What do you think?
“Zer0, what is this up and down thing we have going on? On one hand you think I’m a pompous ass gloating over my accomplishments and craving attention. On the other, we share similar views. It’s kind of an enigma to me. What gives?”
Comment by JohnQPublic — 10/8/2008 #
Life is an enigma. Did you want me to always agree with you? That’s not realistic. What is there to be learned or gained from those who agree with us all the time? Nothing.
Are you always in agreement with yourself? Is there not a world within you that has its own struggles and conflicts?
I think we keep each other in check and balance. You have done so for me on several occasions and I want to thank you for that. It has forced me to reflect upon myself and reevaluate by beliefs, thereby improving myself. I hope you see things the same way.
Maturity teaches us to manage difficulties by staying focused on them and seeing them through carefully, not hurrying to the finish line.
I think you miss my point and the tit for tat between you and Zero has proven that. The “Who has done more in life crap?” I don’t need to involve myself in that since I know what I have accomplished and it is more than I could have imagined when my wife and I were 19 and 20.
Like u said, bragging is not your thing, nor is it mine. But, I’m finding it difficult to convey my view of heaven. For the most part I see reward in the activity itself
I involve myself in not only reading, but biking, watching movies, playing with my kids, and playing sports when I can. I would love to skydive, climb mountains and basejump in the future. My baseball team is the Chicago White Sox. And whoever plays the Cubs. But, I didn’t think it was necessary for me to say all of that.
it makes the struggle seem more like a struggle when your eye is on “when it all ends.â€
Again, we are told to be thankful for the struggle, since it is like burning the impurities from gold. Why, then would we suffer through grudgingly.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m not articulating my view well enough. Or maybe you are blinded to my position and therefore unable to see my point no matter how much I try.
It seems as if you’re attempting (as you have before) to provide some kind of structure around a loose talk forum. That is not to say this is the wrong forum, or another would be better, but to suggest that I’m not entirely sure you get the point (please don’t take that as an attack) of free-form discussion. That is not to say I think you’re dumb and don’t understand free discussion. Of course you’re not and you do. It is to say implementing structure impedes a naturally amorphous quorum and you don’t seem comfortable with that. Or at least you don’t think it is fruitful. But I think you’re not fully appreciating the soft benefits of reflection and consideration. Changing the hearts and minds of others is the tool of radicals. It is rather like the difference between those on the fringes of the political spectrum demanding action and those in the middle who see benefit in subtle nuance and soft diplomacy.
If structure is what is believed to be needed then I see nothing wrong with a Socratic style of debate, which is my preference and is approiate for, well, debate: rhetorical questions followed by logic. (Points made by citing and addressing well-understood ideas like the enumerated fallacies such as reductio ad absurdum. Something truly academic!). But I’m not certain that imposing some rigid debate style is beneficial. But I do think it is an effective method for making a point just as John Marshall did at the Constitutional Convention regarding the allusion to judicial review. (I just think that is one of the great historical examples of that style.) It’s something that just suits my personal taste. But it comes from a wholly different motive than yours.
My motive for debating is not to change anyone’s mind or to reach any measurable goal. My motive is to get my thoughts out there for consideration. As I believe we all do, it is to express what I think are unique notions. That is not the same as persuasion. Persuasion is a lawyerly strategy and is done through subtle argument tactics. (Yes, the Socratic style can be used for persuasion, but that was not my earlier point. My earlier point on style was simply that it is a superior form of expression because it brings sharp clarity to opinions. Naturally, if one is articulate and clear it can be an effective tool of persuasion, but persuasion is a personal motive. I don’t actually harbor that goal. If I persuade, then fine. If I do not, that’s okay as well–as long as my point is understood and considered.) Clearly, I’ve employed no strategies of persuasion. This must be fairly clear to anyone reading anything I’ve written here. Simply considering the perspective is enough. If I think someone is clueless, I tell them so. If I wanted to persuade, I would not be so harsh. I’m not asking anyone to follow me.
It is through action I attempt to make true change–and even that is not changing hearts and minds, but