16

The God Question

Posted by Herb7734 11 months, 1 week ago to Philosophy
349 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

As some of you know, there are a number of people in the gulch who follow a religion, but also follow the principles of Objectivism. At least that is what they say. The following is an except from Rand which clearly states her position when it comes to God. I would be interested to know how the religionists get that square peg into the trapezoid hole.
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth.---To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling us what it is not, but never tell us what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say - and demand that you consider that knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There's more, lots more, but knowing this, I would be interested in finding out how one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Define betterment of human life and functioning, that is totally subjective and not at all something that is universally quantifiable. Subjective as is morality...which is not objective at all.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
      Given your premise above, in what respect is capitalism "better" than any other economic or social system? What standards do you employ to evaluate "better"?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 11 months ago
        Using every empirical monetary measurement.

        Direct financial opportunity each citizen has availability to, All empirically measured against all other countries in the world.

        Even if you take the empirical measure of simple HVAC units in homes to provide comfort, this can be measured empirically and has no "moral" bearing on the determination of better.

        Empirically measures the poor people in this country's biggest health concern is obesity, vs. other countries where the biggest issue for poor is disease and starvation.

        No morality, ethics or any measure other than empirical data. To have food and go hungry on purpose is a different thing from not even having the choice.

        This is empirical not subjective or anything morality related.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
          Of course it’s morality related. Many mainstream moral codes regard economic prosperity as evil .

          “Privation is good for the soul.”
          “Suffering builds character.”
          “Money is the root of all evil.”
          Religious “vows of poverty.”
          Just about anything Pope Francis says.
          Matthew 19:21: “Jesus said to him, ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’”
          Matthew 19:24: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

          The empirical data you cited shows that capitalism is better only if you use a moral standard that “more material prosperity = better for humanity”. When applying the opposite moral standard, which billions of people subscribe to at least in part, your empirical data shows that capitalism is worse.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 11 months ago
            “Money is the root of all evil.”

            "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil." is the correct translation, and in Greek love being all consuming.

            But you digress to a religious debate, and I am pointing out that the metrics used to state emphatically Capitalism is better, are totally empirical as compare the rest of the world.

            Choose any fixed metric, Money per capita, Cell phones , Air Conditioning, Food availability, Utility availability, Opportunity, pick one and I can apply completely metric based criteria to prove Capitalism is better without ever having to bring up morality at all. Morality which is totally subjective, as is ethics.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
              Re-reading a statement from one of your earlier posts: “Acceptence of everyon's A-Moral right to be the master of their own morals, and dictator of their own morals and ethics, with or without religion is all just as bad.” Wait a minute, did you just make a moral judgment? Was it subjective or objective? What moral code were you using when you made that statement?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 11 months ago
                Hey, CBJ!
                As I was going up the stair,
                I met a man who wasn't there,
                He wasn't there again today,
                I wish to hell, he'd go away.
                You're arguing with the man who wasn't there.
                You cannot win arguing about a ghost, nor can you win by arguing with someone who runs his life on tenets attributed to a ghost. He may have a name and a physical presence, but believe me, he isn't there. You'd do just as well talking to a mirror.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 11 months ago
                I was referring to Ayn Rand's statement on man's morality being intrinsic to the individual, being a flaw in Objectivism.

                With no common established set of accepted morality, then each person is moral unto themselves, and round we go again..
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
              All your metrics prove is that capitalism produces more than other economic systems, a quantitative measurement. It says nothing about whether producing more is “better” than producing less. Better for whom, and in what respect? Is it “better” because it enables people to have a greater ability to use their rational faculties and exercise their free will, to enjoy more control over their lives? Capitalism can only be “better” in the context of human thriving or the lack thereof. The very term “better” is a value judgment. And values are the province of morality.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 11 months ago
                I think the issue in our discourse is your idea of the definition of what morality is or is not. I tend to use the dictionary definition of words.


                2a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct.
                "Morality." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 24 June 2016.

                A system of moral conduct has NOTHING to do whatsoever with availability of "stuff" availability of opportunity, possession of "stuff". So better using specific metrics is easily determined using universal quantifiable methods. That are repeatable.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
                  Re: “A system of moral conduct has NOTHING to do whatsoever with availability of ‘stuff’ availability of opportunity, possession of ‘stuff’.”

                  I think there are several million people in Venezuela that will disagree with you.

                  Re: “So better using specific metrics is easily determined using universal quantifiable methods. That are repeatable.”

                  A landfill overflowing with garbage is “better” than an empty one, because it has more “stuff”. This uses a specific metric and is repeatable.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 11 months ago
            I also NEVER said better for humanity that was YOUR input. I simply said "better."

            Feel free to pick metrics devoid of material things. You can establish millions of fixed metrics absent of morality and subjective content and Capitalism comes out far ahead.

            I put it to you, your Christian God is a Capitalist God.

            2 Thessalonians 3:9,10
            9 Not that we lack this right, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 For even while we were with you, we gave you this command: “If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat.”

            So if you do not work, you do not eat, therefore you starve. So is God cruel for telling m=people they should starve? No, work is trading your time/skills, for monetary gain or "consideration" of some kind, i.e. value for value.

            Ephesians 6: 1 - 3
            1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may be long-lived on the earth.”
            Extremely unruly children could be stoned by their parents. So this is a point of rational self-interest.

            Old Testament Isaiah 65: 20 - 22
            20 "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed. 21 "They will build houses and inhabit them; They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.…

            Private property rights and owning the product of your own labor.

            Even in contract law.
            Jeremiah 32: 10 - 15
            10 I recorded it on a scroll, sealed it, called in witnesses, and weighed out the silver in the scales. 11 I took the purchase agreement—the sealed copy with its terms and conditions and the open copy— 12 and gave the purchase agreement to Baruch son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah. I did this in the sight of my cousin[c] Hanamel, the witnesses who were signing the purchase agreement, and all the Judeans sitting in the guard’s courtyard.
            13 “I instructed Baruch in their sight, 14 ‘This is what the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: Take these scrolls—this purchase agreement with the sealed copy and this open copy—and put them in an earthen storage jar so they will last a long time. 15 For this is what the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: Houses, fields, and vineyards will again be bought in this land.’

            Galatians 3:15
            15 To give a human example, brothers:[a] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.

            Bible recommends contracts, contract law.
            I can go on and on how ALL biblical principals are capitalistic and "selfish from a "rational Self-Interest" standpoint.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
              By the way, you cannot logically have the word “better” in your vocabulary without also having the words “worse”, “good” and “bad”. “Worse” is the opposite of “better”. “Good” is a defining term for “better”, which means “more good than”. “Bad” is the opposite of “good”. When applied to the realm of human activity, especially human relations, these terms are value judgments, which are in the province of morality or ethics. Of course you can always delete these words from your vocabulary, but I don’t think there would be much left of Objectivism or any other philosophy without them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
              RE: "I also NEVER said better for humanity that was YOUR input. I simply said 'better.'"
              Without the presence of any value-related metric, the word "better" is meaningless, a free-floating abstraction. The only standard you're applying to capitalism is "more", and "more" by itself does not automatically equal "better". Is being obese "better" than being skinny? You're also using an implied standard that capitalism is "better" for human beings. This automatically brings your assertion into the realm of human values, i.e. morality. And if you don't believe that capitalism is "better" for humanity, then who or what in the world is it "better" for? It has to be "better" for someone or something.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cksawyer 11 months ago
    I define God as capital R Reality, as a whole in it largest all-inclusive sense. All-that-is. Not each part, process and subset thereof, but EVERY part, process and subset thereof, taken as the single fundamental greatest Unity.

    In my spiritual practices (the things I do to build, maintain and grow my relationship with God = my spirituality), I consider 2 aspects of God.

    One is what I call Presence, which is the very quality of Beingness which pervades and is shared by Everything That Exists. Through meditation and prayer (not in the traditional sense of that word) and other spiritual practices, I can feel and connect to that infinite reservoir of power and energy to recharge and turbo charge myself to rise above and perform beyond my own finite store of power and energy.

    The second aspect is Grace or Spirit or Flow, as you will. This is the intricate field of interlocking beginningless and endless causual connections - The Way of Things. This is where I seek guidance, data and direction beyond my finite store of knowledge and understanding and my limited capacity for wisdom, insight, forsight, intuition and creativity. It is the realm of everything that I don't know that I don't know. It is where all possibility residws, where what I need to know when I need to know it, to live at my peak performance and direct my actions and my life optimally, unfolds as I need to know it in Ever Emerging Reality (my job is to pay attention [LOVE that phrase!], let go of the best-guess snapshot of how reality should be, and continually integrate that data into my ever evolving strategies and next steps.

    Ok. I will stop there for now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I can understand why you'd leave the Catholic church Jesus (if he existed at all) would be appalled at it. Arguments concerning morality aside, if you are rational, how do you explain a ghost? I know why Moses made it invisible. When one tribe conquered another, they destroyed the conquered tribe's god (idols) and made them worship their god. But crafty Moses said, you can't destroy our god, he's invisible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months ago
      If one is going to use the Bible to argue, one should also note that during his time on the mountain, the Bible records Moses as speaking with God "face to face". To me, it's pretty hard to talk to an invisible face. And if the face is there, I'm betting the rest would be there as well. If man was created "in the image of God", that tells me that God not only has a face, but a head, torso, arms, and legs and that he looks just like us. Makes the whole "father" thing a little more plausible as well.

      One thing that might help is to understand a document called the Nicene Creed, from the early 5th century AD. Basically, it was where a bunch of "scholars" and theologians tried to get together and compromise on the nature of God. It is this document that asserts contradiction upon contradiction such as the invisible nature, the formless nature, the 3-in-1 and 1-in-3 nature of God and attributes all of these contradictions to the inconceivable power of God. But none of it is scripturally based. It's like an Act of Congress: so full of pork and concessions that it is almost useless. To me, the Creed is just as useful as most Acts of Congress - according to one Dave Barry! =D And it is this Creed which Rand refers to and rightly condemns.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 11 months ago
        When I was a kid, I was very bothered about God's genitalia. Did he have them? If so, why. If not, then the image isn't perfect. Of course, after a certain point, I didn't care.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jeffdhurley1 11 months ago
    as one of those being somewhat downgraded here as a christian lets look at few things Rand says : In a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

    There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

    This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

    All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original. However she makes a very simple mistake that many make by tying the act of salvation to works done on earth .Salvation is easy believe and you are saved . Works are done ( or ethical decisions made) because as a saved person you want to do them . My particular "sect "believes that God gave us an intellect for a reason and that we must come to God through logical thought. . lets look at the galt oath "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
    This pledge, which one makes to oneself, is an expression of individualism, and a Personal Declaration of Independence from the shackles of both society and the state.

    The first half of the pledge is a recognition that no others have a claim, by right, to your life, whether they be an individual, a group, or the government, and you assert your freedom and independence.

    The second half of the pledge indicates a recognition that you are a self-sufficient adult, prepared to take responsibility for the conduct of your own life, and, respecting the rights of others, you have no intention of forcing them to fulfill that responsibility for you. If we look at the original disciples they were not forced to follow they were told what it would entail and they chose to follow. They decided themselves that the value he offered was worth the value they gave up . just food for thought here
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months ago
      Before comparing questions of ethics, or any other parts of a philosophy, most apologists for religion, including yourself, start too far up the tree. Rand puts down a basis for philosophy at certain basic premises. You can compare it to a tree. Root = metaphysics, trunk = epistemology, branch = ethics, leaves = politics, flower,= art. Each part springing from the one below.You, on the other hand start out with the fact that you must believe in a ghost, an invisible God. So, right at the beginning, we are no longer able to compare religion to her philosophy, because even where certain ethical questions converge, the two are at polar opposites since there is no rationality to religion's basis, and rationality is the entire basis of Objectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barcbarry 11 months ago
    A relationship with the living God of all creation, is all you need.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jconne 11 months ago
      I'd go with - a relationship with reality, reason and your own integrity. Part of integrity is thinking for yourself and having high standards before YOU say something is true.

      So, how do you distinguish fact from fiction?
      What are your rules of evidence?
      This question is for any theists here out there.

      Are you interested in having contradictions in terms pointed out?

      When presented with a question, is the responsible thing to do - to determine the question's validity before attempting to answer it?

      What's maliciously evil, is asking an unanswerable, invalid question and telling people they should feel guilty is they can't answer it. Think - the Emperor's New Clothes. That's the lesson of that story.

      Teach that - not the Adam and Eve myth!

      Posit - Adam and Eve are punished for not being blindly obedient but rather, seeking knowledge. Knowledge of good and evil! Which is - that which is good for you and that which is not. Punished for wanting to know the difference?!! What an evil story to foist on children. The opposite of all that's ethical!

      And then, posit Jesus, to save us from God's punishment for Adam and Eve's transgressions - seeking knowledge to think for themselves, being curious and NOT being blindly obedient. Again - evil manipulation incarnate! It really does't get worse than this. Is destroying a soul less evil than destroying a body? And then pretending it's saving the soul.

      Humans deserve better!
      Shout it from the mountain tops.
      And at every opportunity.

      Be part of bring back an age of reason and precluding the insane political conversation taking place in the daily news.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months ago
      Send him over. He can bring wine which he seems to favor in ceremonies. By the way is God a he or an it? Goodyear, Goodrich, I get confused. You are talking about Yaweh, the invisible Hebrew volcano God are you not?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cksawyer 11 months ago
    I am not involved in a religion, nor do I entertain, let alone worship any supernatural or mystical "being." However spirituality and my spiritual practices are of central importance in my life. I consider myself a "secular spirtualist."

    I have reclaimed the word God from the meanings others have given it and redefined it for myself in away that both is in integrity with an objective metaphysics and an epistemology of reason, while at the same time supports a deep, rich and practical spirituality and potent spiritual disciplines.

    I will share more if I have a couple of interested parties....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jconne 11 months ago
      Ok @cksawyer, I'll bite.
      What is your definition God that you reclaim?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by cksawyer 11 months ago
        Cool. Thanks for asking, wasn't sure if folks here were open-minded enough to be curious. Guess I have to remember that this is Atlas Society, not ARI! 😎

        That said, my response with take a bit of time to craft well, so I promise to respond later at a more conducive opportunity.

        Cheers,
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by cksawyer 11 months ago
        Hi jconne. Apologies for the delay. Life is awesomely busy these days. Getting ready to speak at the upcoming Atlas Summit/FreedomFest.

        At any rate, how to streamline and essentialize this...? Ok, I define God as capital R Reality, as a whole in it largest all-inclusive sense. All-that-is. Not each part, process and subset thereof, but EVERY part, process and subset thereof, taken as the single fundamental greatest Unity.

        In my spiritual practices (the things I do to build, maintain and grow my relationship with God = my spirituality), I consider 2 aspects of God.

        One is what I call Presence, which is the very quality of Beingness which pervades and is shared by Everything That Exists. Through meditation and prayer (not in the traditional sense of that word) and other spiritual practices, I can feel and connect to that infinite reservoir of power and energy to recharge and turbo charge myself to rise above and perform beyond my own finite store of power and energy.

        The second aspect is Grace or Spirit or Flow, as you will. This is the intricate field of interlocking beginningless and endless causual connections - The Way of Things. This is where I seek guidance, data and direction beyond my finite store of knowledge and understanding and my limited capacity for wisdom, insight, forsight, intuition and creativity. It is the realm of everything that I don't know that I don't know. It is where all possibility residws, where what I need to know when I need to know it, to live at my peak performance and direct my actions and my life optimally, unfolds as I need to know it in Ever Emerging Reality (my job is to pay attention [LOVE that phrase!], let go of the best-guess snapshot of how reality should be, and continually integrate that data into my ever evolving strategies and next steps.

        Ok. I will stop there for now. Thanks for asking.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 11 months, 1 week ago
    Your brave Herb...hope you are able to generate an honest discussion and I will start it off with an off shoot of my work with Consciousness.

    Funny...just this morning I thought I could finally bridge the gap between this bicameral brain type thinking and the conscious quantum mind... the cosmos... the big picture...I failed again. The person I was talking to is interested in my work and supports my effort but cannot understand that the organized concept of a god in bicameral times, (pre-conscious) and now; which carries a connotation of something that created everything...to what I am describing as quantum entanglements; it obviously was intended that way but, Look, it need not be mystical, excepted by faith, humanized nor mystified. Nothing is watching over you.
    But, we sure do have many connections; energy/matter entangled and you are but one half of that connection and each effects the other no matter the distance. Quantum events in which one might get insights or premonitions. Quantum pairs, family's of quantum pairs, temporary and permanent...it's simply mind blowing. Becoming conscious, gaining a mind, gave us reason and an opportunity to grow and create, for our own sake which has a beneficial consequence for others.

    Religion is just an organized teaching of what our bicameral ancestors figured out, expressed in a bicameral language and taught to the bicameral brain with that bicameral language...they never considered consciousness, the mind, increased understanding nor conscious growth...it just stagnates dead in the water. Stuck in that meme, one ceases to evolve.
    But it's still valuable history, a valuable story to learn basic concepts that can be applied to the now, Conscious Mind in a quantum way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jconne 11 months ago
      You may think I'm shallow, but I see a bunch of words for which you have provided no concrete definitions. It's the grounding of language that keeps us real rather than in the land of vague babble.

      It may help you to see Ayn Rand's, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" - her theory of concepts.

      That holds people accountable to indicate the facts of reality that an abstraction, a concept, subsumes. It's all about the role of concepts to take the infinite detail of the world and group that detail into mentally manageable, named groupings. Epistemology teaches how to do that competently.

      The first identification to establish the necessity of this is to observe that we can only hold a few units in focal consciousness at once. Concepts are how we leverage this limited capacity.

      Rand's great strength is her uncommon honesty and clarity of thought - identifying essentials from all the noise of other detail. It's not that such detail is not important, but it's not the distinguishing characteristics that help us understand. Still, it is important to understand that all that detail is the referent for the concept. That distinction between referents and definitions is an important principle. "Chairs" can refer to all the chairs in sight, in the world, in the history of the world and in the future. All that scope in one mental unit. AND, the referees is all those actual and potential chairs with all their details.

      Let's get real!

      [Edit for clarity and typos]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 11 months ago
        Oh, all of that is Real, more than any of us might realize...but to address the clarity you seek which I appreciate, I'll keep it short in the hopes this might help you.
        Note, I am involve in work that no one has attempted seriously with any sort of integration of academic subjects...My cross to bear...so to speak...

        Everything there, except perhaps "Bicameral" can be looked up and has a specific definition, ie, Quantum Event, Quantum Entanglements, Families of Quantum Entanglements, mysticism...etc.
        Now, I, Like Julian Jaynes use Bicameral to describe "Pre-Conscious" man...meaning man was not aware of his own awareness...ex, not knowing the voice in his head was his own and Not some invisible entity speaking from outside himself. Of course when bicameral is used in relation to the brain, it's simple 2 parts, split left and right with different functions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jconne 11 months ago
          Pre-conscious - does that qualify as man?
          But you probably mean pre-self-conscious from your description.

          If you mean pre-conceptual, at least above an animal's first level conceptual ability, you are not talking about man.

          I like the remark that our pets may know: two people, two trees, etc. - but never the concept two.

          As far as left and right parts of the brain with different functions, all the research on brain plasticity show it's not the case. Localization is only superficially understood.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 11 months ago
            Laughing...pre-conscious man...or today, people in government, I call parasitical humanoids, meaning they are only two parts of a three part equation; just a brain in a body with a fake identity and never creating or producing value...taking from others to survive. The part they are missing is of course is the Mind...also called the "I".

            I am using consciousness in the idea of being aware of one's own awareness and that has to do with the mind...the brain cannot do that...mankind could understand the concept two without being aware of it prior to the period between the Iliad and the Odyssey as discovered by Julian Jaynes. Obviously...not everyone participated...right up to today...shaking my head and laughing again.
            I think those that study the brain, even today, still don't recognize that the mind is different than the brain and is a quantum field generated by the transceptions of vibratory energy produced by the brain. They are still trying to account for it all in your head. -and- yes, each 1/2 can take over for the other when damage or disease occurs.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jconne 11 months ago
          And, "Note, I am involve in work that no one has attempted seriously with any sort of integration of academic subjects...My cross to bear...so to speak..."

          Looks to me like so much pretentious nonsense - just playing with big words. What are "floating abstractions"? Look it up!

          If you want to apply your mind effectively to challenging questions, learn the thinking tools Objectivism offers. Especially see "The Ayn Rand Companion" and use the AynRandLexicon.com.

          These will challenge you and give you a firm basis to add to our body of knowledge. I hope you can and do.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jconne 11 months ago
          As far as your quantum-rooted terms, this is also on the bleeding edge of understanding where there are experiments explained this way, but on the wrong scale to be applied to your context.

          We know a table is flat at a human scale and that it's a useful concept. The fact that, at nano-scale, there is no "flat" with particles all over the place, is not relevant to human scale use of flatness.

          As Rand said, all knowledge is contextual. This is such an example.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 11 months ago
            Actually quantum rooted terms do in fact apply in this context...problem is many are not ready to see it, except it or even get it. Although I do know and work with some quantum physics folks that do get it and are trying their best to help me articulate it and gather experimental data for resource material...toughest things of all are the original experiment done by Einstein and Edison on the subject matter.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jconne 11 months ago
              You say, "Actually quantum rooted terms do in fact apply in this context...problem is many are not ready to see it, except it or even get it."

              Sounds like a religious assertion rather than a factual one. Plus a superior victim posture. When you have evidence and a case to make, be sure to let us know. Until then, this is just arbitrary assertion - throwing around big, impressive words and name dropping.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 11 months ago
                It's not a religion...like progressivism, liberalism, environmentalism, or even the organization of the teachings of Jesus, Buddha or Confucius.
                I'm just trying to show that what our biblical ancestors had pagan mystified, humanized or otherwise misunderstood was just the way things work in the cosmos on a quantum level...it's really simple stupid...ex, if you read the description of what Einstein expressed as a "Quantum Event" you'd have to think..."That's ask and receive"...(and NO, we're not talking about the silly notions expressed in the "Secret") and the whole process may be related to quantum entanglements...this stuff is exciting, amazing and may answer many of the questions we have about these things...If one is willing to look at it...you might see that This is what will eradicate Mysticism.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 11 months ago
    There is a new/old spiritual phlosophy expoused by a minister Bill Donahue "Hidden Meanings.com and has You Tube video lessons which I have been learning. Some of it is esosteric but he goes all the way back to the first one world monotheistic religion "Zororasterism". which he shows that the three main religions came from. But he takes it a completely different direction. That the Bible is study of the human mind. With that said I have accepted this new path finding it compatible with Ayn Rands philosophy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by hvance 11 months ago
    I assume that everyone believes what is written by historians, at least for the most part. Christ was seen by over 400 people after His resurrection, His disciples and many other people. His miracles were witnessed by 1000's of people yet people today won't believe that because no one today can copy what Jesus did. He is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. If He is such a threat to everyone why do grown men cringe at the mention of His name? The Bible will turn the foolish into wise men if people will simply follow its teachings. And yes, there is something greater that nothing which takes more of faith than to believe in Jesus Christ. This is one thing the Ayn got wrong, she insisted on proof but would not accept written history authenticated by countless people. Each of us has the free will to accept Christ or reject Him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months ago
      All you know about Jesus is what certain advocates wrote about him. Everything in the "new" testament would not be admitted in any court because it is all hearsay. It matters not if it is 400 or 4,000 people because it is whatever a person wrote about it some hundred or so years later. Maybe longer. That is why among many other things, the entire story of Jesus is questionable.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bassboat 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are all eye witnesses to Jesus' miracles and Resurrection. Read God's word and try to disprove His authenticity. The Word of God will convict you. Read it slowly, don't speed read it. The Bible makes the foolish wise.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          The current "new testament", both the Catholic and the Protestant which it was derived from were written and re-written and re-written over hundreds of years. And then was completely revised with several books being dropped out and those remaining heavily edited under Emperor Constantine who actually, with the help of his wife and certain scholars completely revised it. It is doubtful that any questioning of original content would allow those books left to stand up under historical scrutiny. It is even possible that Jesus didn't even exist but was the invention of those who wanted to use religion to have power of the masses since Rome was no longer the power it had been. It was originally a Jewish sect following the teachings of Yoshua (Joshua) who seemed to be a charismatic rabbi. Jesus is a Greek version of Joshua and was unique enough to keep it distinct from all the other Joshuas which was a fairly common name.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 11 months ago
      Alleged "miracles" prove nothing. "Thousands of people witnessed Christ's miracles, therefore He is the Son of God" is not a syllogism. A forum for the promotion of Ayn Rand's philosophy is not a proper venue for religious proselytizing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 11 months, 1 week ago
    I class Objectivism as a religion. I don't expect this to be a popular view here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months, 1 week ago
      Sorry, no mysticism involved. A rational explanation exists for every premise and proposition. A religion works this way:
      Believer: Why must I do this, O God?
      God: Because I said so.
      Believer: OK.
      In Objectivism, it goes more like:
      Objectivist: Why must I do this?
      Rand: A concise rational and expertly crafted reply.
      Quite a difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo