Evil

I think often about how so many people in this world seem to believe in evil as something immutable and unchanging, that they must constantly fear and thus give much of their own power to. I don't want to live that way and so this article helps remind me to focus my intent carefully. What prompted you to write this?

Gerry,
The words were spoken in answer to a question after a philosophical talk at a college.

WE are each personally THE ONE that "makes the connection" (=) between Good (+) and Evil (-) in the truth of the Trinity (+=-).

Mechanical Evil would be to me the OUTer Objective manifestation of Evil, that found "there" objectively as a result of unaware consciousness ... unaware meaning the non-realization of the INner source of all evil being but the INtentions of people that knew NOT the Good (+) that exists INside of them, that which their INtuitive consciousness (=) connects to as a bridge (=) to make peace with and reconcile all evil thoughts (+=-) ...


That INtuitive Consciousness is also the very same thing as your higher Self Soul connection between your lower self ego and God ... (+=-) is what I call the BET, the "Basic Equation of Truth" ... which is UNIversal and the core of the TOE, the "Theory Of Everything" that our advanced scientists are searching for ... but will never realize as the "Dualists" (+/-) that they seem to be ...

There are two effective ways to look at God as a singular aspect, as the very source of our universe and as the entire universe itself, the totality. God is thus both, and seen as the (+) compared to any aspect of it as the (-) in "relative" comparison ... Yet it is our own personal Soul that is our INterconnection as (=) that makes it work to perfection for us ... using that, we are Trinitarian (+=-) and neglecting it we are egoic dualists (+/-), seeing ourselves as (+) and others as relative (-)s.

IMnsHO.

PS ... I left out ... that THE Consciousness IS also THE Spirit of God. (=).

It could be said that "evil" is in the eye of the beholder, just as what may be perceived as "good" by one may be seen as "bad" by another. Some women were seen as "witches" and as "evil" when they were merely doing hands on healing. I do not label anything as evil although I am not always happy at what I see. I also do not believe that any person is evil. People choose to do things that are incredibly cruel but they themselves are not evil. We all come from the same Source and all of us have the divine essence or force of God within us. Some just choose not to see it or express it.

Think about this, folks... there is no such thing as "dark." Dark is the absence of light. There is no such thing as "cold." Cold is the absence of heat. We think of "dark" and "cold" as if they were positive things, but in reality they only appear as such because they are so tangible. But one cannot get dark by turning on a "dark bulb." Dark occurs when one turns off a "light bulb." It is the same with good and evil. Good is when one is approaching God, not physically but spiritually. Evil is when one is receding from God. One becomes "evil" only by receding from God, that is, by turning away from God given principles. Since God is the personification of UNITY, anything that disrupts unity (such as between individuals) is by definition, "evil." So that contrary to "Christian" theology, one is not born "evil" but only with the potential for becoming "evil." A new born child is sinless and guiltless and either progresses toward God and UNITY or away from God and UNITY. Anyway, that is my view.

Carla, Jerry and Donald,
I agree with your different points of view and I think Lunatic Fringe's noting "mechanical ends of Nature" is relevant, too, to what you write.
"Mechanical " is used as one aspect of the God. We describe societies and civilizations as having high, creative periods and barabarous, decadent ones.
And we consider some individuals to have developed "souls" and others to
to lack humanity. We are all subject to the laws of Nature but that is part of our nature . We do not have to be ruled by this part of our nature although we have to
serve it, too. Jerry writes of the soul as an " INterconnection as (=) " Perhaps awareness or conscience would be another term for soul.

Donald,

The concept of evil presented in the Book, is akin to our concept of malformed, or diseased. Fruit, for example, is spoken of as "evil", when it becomes rotten or infested with little critters. To divorce this meaning from the word, renders all discussion of evil in Biblical terms, pointless. It is quite obvious that there is evil in the world, in the Biblical sense, and man is not spoken of as "born evil", but rather, born "sinful", which simply means possessing the capacity to become evil.

In order to be useful, the mind has a reactive quality, which automatically generates alternatives to any given action or idea considered. This is directly observable at any time, by the person them-self. Whatever we are aware of, whether through sensing or remembering, there is a constant stream of associated thoughts and images. Since we all, through this reactive mind, think thoughts that are less than honorable, we are all "born to sin".

The need for such an associative memory system is fairly obvious, since naturally, the very same action can at some points be beneficial to the creature that is us, and at other points, quite harmful. In order to make use of the "intelligence" capacity humans have, it is necessary that the totality of our memories of past experience be made available in an ongoing way. In order to avoid harming ourselves, or others, it is extremely important that we not simply react to the various impulses and urgings of the basic "drives" to satisfy the biologic needs and preferences of the "animal" we inhabit. The consequences to us, both as individuals and as communities of individuals, would be catastrophic if those inherent biological impulses were not "buffered" by lessons of the past results of attempts to satisfy them.

There exists a potential with any such associative memory generating system, for the creature that possesses it to begin treating it as a tool to get satisfaction of the very same impulses and urges it is intended to mitigate. When this happens, the person has done "evil". They have commandeered an aspect of the whole of intelligence, for the purpose of overriding it's intended function. When this becomes habitual and intentional, the person could be spoken of as 'evil', which merely means corrupted beyond "palatability" to God.

John,
Your presentation is comprehensive and clear. Your approach reminds me of Krishnamurti's, although your vision is guided by the Bible or as you sometimes say the Word. As you know, I use different words than Krishnamurti and yourself, although essentially I agree with the meaning of both yours and his. I wonder how you relate what you term "the 'intelligence' capacity of humans," which is fine use of words, to prayer?

Clarke,

I thank you for your attention to what I said, and your statement of appreciation. Yes, I am something of a "New Age" Bibliophile, I suppose, having come to see the Book after several years of careful self-observation of the sort advocated by Mr. Krishnamurti, and some others. I was quite stunned to find that Book in such profound agreement with the "direct" approach which yielded much understanding, in my experience.

Your question about the relationship between prayer and "intelligence capacity" is a very astute one, it seems. And I surmise that you sense the inherent ramifications of "presenting" oneself before the One, in a state of disorderliness of any kind. Only in "stillness" within, can a man hope to hear His "voice", for the chatter of the reactive mind will surely drown out the subtle movements and intricate "beckoning" He weaves into our realities. (I'm intentionally using language I recall from long ago exposure to Mr. K.  ; )

That's what that man "taught" me; That the totality of our intelligence is not bound to the reactive mind, or any form of imagination or memory, but exists beyond thought itself, and is the origin of all reason and emotion and action. Only in attention does the human perceive the actual qualities of that intelligence, for it is not something we, the self of words, generate or control.

To pray to God is for me, to observe all that presents itself , without becoming ensnared in the reactive memories endless comparisons and contrasting offerings. They are "mechanical", which is to say "profane". There is no life within them, only the residue of the past, which is to say "death". God will not abide death in any form, but is a Living God, and exists in the eternal present only.

John,
You spoke to my question in a way that deepens your original writing, and yes, I was sincerely hoping you would share more of your understanding. Your last paragraph especially added a deeper meaning to what you said before for me. What you say of prayer affirms for me what I feel is the need to be in touch with what is sacred in order to become more "human." We so often do not wish to try to be or forget that the sacred is always present. So "prayer" may begin with facing how we are at at any moment and facing ourselves, our whole selves. The sacred is "available," if you wish. We know what we know but that is past history. Whot you term the "intelligence capacity of humans" calls for a relation to the sacred. If we are not open to the sacred , it can't help. We may be very successful in life or terrible failurus yet not live real lives. Krisnamurti speaks of this very clearly about how we are identfied with one side of our nature. I feel your vision is, shall I say, more "inclusive." That is a a poor word. I mean you include the sacred.

In reading some of the subsequent comments to my own, I think of "other" possible "connections" where there is the "focal point" of change (=) between opposites.

The comment by Donald about dark being the absence of light, cold the absence of heat ... yes, those are "relative" cross-overs in that at the extremes they are opposites, which are quite noticeable (contrastable) to us folks ... but what about at the middle point of balance between the two differing realms ? That area half way between, the very middle or center, the grey area between white and black, and then between heat and cold, where would we place that center, how would we define it ?

Some call the extreme of cold absolute zero, a place measured as minus 400 degrees give or take, where all molecular motion supposedly stops, but where is the "other" end ? Probably where everything disappears from this world realm I guess ... surely not something measurable, thus just a subjective opinion. (unless of course there has been an agreed "fact" concerning that, which I am unaware of).

My subjective opinion is that the very end of opposing extremes is where we could consider that God exists as the "outer concept", then at the very center of all such extremes, the INside cross-over balance point, the natural differentiation between, as well as the natural fulness of objective truth, is where the Spirit (=) of God resides the very strongest. God is the "whole coin" the ( ) of (+=-) withIN which God's Spirit is the (=), and all oppositional potentials are the (+) and (-) ... [NOT (+/-)]. Valuations are only manmade concepts, not God's. They are worldly, not universal.

So the "world idea" of all such is NOT the final word, just as the Christian Religion based upon the Bible is NOT the final word ... the final word, for all practical purposes, I would maintain was/is God ... The UNIversal concept, at least in the concept I hold of (+=-). Not, IMnsHO, the God seen as Duality (+/-), that so many worldly views seem to hold inviolate.


No, my opinion is UNIversal, (+=-), NOT worldly, (+/-) seen as a "worldly view", would apply as I have already explained, in many ways, one of which would be between a "fallen sinful" world view as John expressed, the (-) compared to the Heavenly of God (+) from which we came and will (hopefully) return ... also a Dualistic worldly view (+/-) where there is a seeming "void" or "gap" [designated as (/)] between God and man (+/-).

Now some will deny this duality and claim it does not exist, that everything is interconnected and relative ... and I would agree with them on that. Yet, for the sake of understanding and communicating such, we have to use words and/or symbols for our expressions of meaning, and in doing so, those words should have a common understanding between the people involved, we usually call those agreed upon meanings the "facts" of the matter. But such facts are also ONLY world views agreed upon for the sake of discussion ... God has no separations and specifics in creation that we can be sure of ... those religious claim he does, that he has preferences and hard rules never to be broken ... spiritualists like myself would disagree on much of that.

Religions are world views, my Spirituality is generic and universal, a Trinity (+=-), NOT a Duality (+/-) ...


Thus, from a UNIversal view of (+=-), I, as a relative (=), would see the subject of Dark Matter and Dark Energy as being withIN the UNIversal reality of (+=-). "U" for "UNIversal view" as (+=-).

So far the world view is still as Donald explained, the (+) is everything (all powerful) as compared to the negative (all weak) which it readily displaces. The world view has yet to allow the (-) of Dark matter/energy to have any valuation comparable to the existing Light reality considered all powerful. "W" for "world view" as (+/-).

Universal view of relationships then would be: (U=W)

World view of relationships then would be : (W/U)


But everything is in a state of change and there really are no "voids or gaps" (/) in between any of those changes in absolute truth, because there is no such thing as a void or gap, other than the relative ones we make up in our minds to differentiate for our own reasons of thinking, communicating, and attempted manipulating of our "perceived" reality ... a reality which is really only a fact to the degree we have all come to accept it as such, nothing more in the universal context.


This whole comment is but to differentiate between those of you that still have world (W) limitations (+/-) to your thinking and those (admittedly few) such as I that look at it all with a UNIversal (U) (+=-) "priority" ...

I have held the world view for most of my lifetime, so I understand it well. Since my "spiritual awakening" I now hold the UNIversal view of (+=-) where the Spirit of God as (=) is ubiquitous throughout all of universal creation IMnsHO.

The latter view gives much more freedom, the truth that sets one free actually, the promise of our religions which even they seldom have understood or been able to grant to anyone.

All is relative, all is God, all is Spirit interconnected ... thus everything other than the singular UNITy of God is all about "relativity" and thus it is all subjective to the thinker that considers it, s/he is, in reality, made as/in the "image" of God the Creator, as a creator god, when we are utilizing our wholeness as per our design (+=-) which is our "potential" perfection, promised even by Jesus when he said "you too can be as I only greater" (or some such).


God allowed and contains the full range of potentials, positive and negative, for this universal creation to freely use ... dualistically as (+/-) in conflict (destruction) where one calls the other the opposite, in ignorance of (+=-) ... OR ... understanding (+=-) and playing with it for cooperative balance with appreciation for diversity used for synergy (creation) ... with the latter, there is no "evil" to be concerned about for the balanced (=) person, discernment without judgement, no sin, an assured place in eternity ... what more could one ask for during this life ?

LF, the formulae always holds up when understood because it is the basis of universal truth. IMnsHO.

LF, I differ from "orthodoxy" in that I do NOT believe that God "has a will for us" ... I believe that God "created" us as all of the "parts" of himself, and thus already knows we are him and where it will ultimately end (if ever) and the probable result ... I think that he has placed us here in balance as (+/-), and his wisdom knows that his Spirit is the (=) INvolved in it all and that enough of us will find/recognise it to the degree that "all will never be lost" ... because he knows that it is his love that is the true power that will insure that continuing connection ...

But it is important to realize that his love is UNconditional, meaning that it applies to (+) AND (-) alike, equally, because he knows they are both equal and both required to make up the whole (+=-).

The best example I could give is life itself, especially when one comes to know the fullness of (+=-) ... nature is a fair representation except for the view of it obvious to the person that is a dualist, seeing mostly the competitive conflict involved in it. One must be aware of the (+=-) to realize the underlying love that pervades everything.

The only "other" example that comes to mind for it's expression for man, would be to do a Google on "Perennial Philosophy" and follow some of the links to where that takes you ... it stands for the underlying basic truth (which I believe the BET (+=-) represents) found at the center of all philosophic concepts of religions and especially the "generic" spirituality's that have not yet "institutionalized" such neutrality into a dogma or creed. PP is what the Mystics of all religious backgrounds recognise as the essential truths of which their orthodox systems were "originally" based and formed upon at their very beginnings prior to their "pollutions" by error and egos over the years.

IMnsHO.

Templeton's Legacy of Humility - David Waters
Billionaire investor John Templeton, who died Tuesday at age 95, might have had more money than God, but he knew better than to mistake wealth for wisdom.
"We should admit that no human being has ever known one percent of the infinity of God. We are terribly ignorant," Templeton told me in 2002.
Humility is a wonderful trait in a billionaire, or any person of faith. How do we find more of it? Templeton spent a good deal of his fortune trying to figure that out.
The Wall Street Legend was the first and only billionaire I ever met. I interviewed him in his hometown, Winchester, Tenn., better known as the birthplace of Dinah Shore.
I wanted to ask him for a stock tip. He wanted to talk about science and religion. Just my luck.
"When new discoveries are made about science, do we not merely discover more about God?" he said. "All of nature reveals something of the Creator."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/07/the_billionaires_search_for_hu.html#more

PS ... from the larger perspective of God, our presently experienced "universe" we believe to be a relative positive (+) as consisting of "that" able to "overpower" the (-) as in light displacing darkness etc ... heat (energy) displacing cold (lack of energy) ... MAY WELL BE ... only the (+) HALF of the THE EQUATION of (+=-) ... where what we call death, the negative as the opposite of "Life", may well be interconnected Spiritually (=) with a PARALLEL UNIVERSE which is that which we are only recently suspecting as the DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER ... the (-) side of the "greatest" expression of (+=-) ... meaning that from the perspective of "that other (-) negative" side, their view is the same as ours only the opposite overall ... as has been said in metaphysics, "As above, So below" ... !?!?!?.

Lunatic Fringe.
"If awareness and conscience is a measure of given person monstrosity, or sanctity, then what good is conscience when it is plagued by the inconsistency and the distressed call of the human mind. "

We are not our "thoughts." A quiet and disciplined mind is necessary . We have to seek in ourselves .

Lunatic,

" . . . it all comes down to survival."

Is that true for you? Are you personally on "a never ending quest for dominance/existence" ? If so, why are you speaking to me now? What is the "survival value" of your participation in a discussion such as this one?

One must be careful, I think, to avoid believing that others are actually like the simplistic representations of them, which one can generate in one's imagination. Surely you realize that I cannot just conjure up a little 'you' in my mind, that is useful for understanding the actual person that you are. How much more-so, am I incapable of conjuring up a whole world of little people, and other creatures, and understanding the totality of life?

If what you wish is to "summarize" existence; to reduce your relationship to the "external" world to a level commensurate with what you can imagine of it; you will end up with something along the lines of Jerry's "BET". Which is to say; a hyper-dogmatic "touchstone" concept, which one endlessly invokes to see that one was right for believing that one's own mind is reality itself. But to what good end or purpose? What point in such robotic repetition of ideas? You invoke a similar equation-like hyper-simplification, when you speak of, "it all comes down to survival . . . ".     Why?

There is a reality beyond our minds. It is not reducible to simplistic formulae, and neither are we that experience that reality. Cities are not dots on a map, religions not the smattering of words and images that come to mind when we hear their names, a sunrise not the mere spinning of the concept of a globe beneath a cartoon sun. There is order of unspeakable depth and beauty within and without. I choose to witness it. You may choose what you wish.

Lunatic Fringe,
There are many who manage to live responsible lives , raise families and work in the world as is. They don't believe governments don't lie , that the legal system is just, that businesses that claim to be honest are. They have common sense and watch what people do not what they say. They see that many anti-war people and do-gooders often end up fighting each other to seek power for themselves.

But several of us have been speaking of a search for truth, a deeper life. In the East, when some have fulfilled their societies obligations, raised families and worked in the world they retire from life and seek to develop an inner life, perhaps with a teacher. But many nowadays are seeking to live in the world and also grow an inner life.

If they study themselves with right methods they see how they are lost in considering, dreams, association, or what have you, how because of this the door is shut to one's inner life. The effort to cultivate directed attention is an attempt to create a space for an opening; it opens the door. Of course, one is swept away again, usually immediately, but one can return. I have this moment... and this one. It's like that. It is a shock to see that is how we are most of the time. Most don't imagine this is how it is. They have been educated to be successful and live in the roles that society rewards and they believe those roles are who they are. They don't know themselves or their potential.

Lunatic,

I am, as I have been since long before coming here, a person that believes the Book is "literally" the Word of God. It is not the sort of writing one can speak of taking "literally", and it is simply brimming with metaphor and allegory and symbolism. It is a common myth that those who think it is the Word of God don't realize that, and the stuff of rhetorical diatribes.

There is nothing whatsoever contradictory about the teachings of Mr. Krishnamurti and the Bible, that I can think of. And I have seen articles here where the notion of meditation being "unchristian" was put forth, and dozens of devout Christians stepped forward and said this was ridiculous, and that prayer was to them a state of meditation and serious personal inquiry.

You would do well, I am rather sure, to simply forget the silly echos of people's rambling popular misconceptions, which are often called "common knowledge", and never look back. Such things are useless garbage.

PS,

" BTW it's Lunatic Fringe"

. . . by the way it's John Knight, Mr. Fringe.
But you can call me John if you wish (or anything else  ; )

LF.

It is rather easy to not lose arguments; don't say anything you are not reasonable certain of. There are innumerable points of view I shine on . . . er, I mean; allow to shine on. I just keep my mouth shut. You won't find me interjecting myself into all sorts of opinion exchanges, and I don't consider my opinions all that important or trustworthy. I am just a man.

"And to vividly and openly state that you are as you have always been makes your discovery of Mr. Krishnamurti look unimportant and rather dull."

Well, I didn't say I am as I have always been, I said I am as I have been since long before I came to this cite, a believer that the Bible is the word of God. I encountered Mr. Krishnamurti while in my early twenties. I did not "encounter" God until I was forty.

I see no point to the quote of my words from an earlier exchange, nor any contradiction of any sort to what I have said here. Perhaps I'm missing something . . . And you claiming that the Bible can turn people into "people haters" is of no consequence to me. You are just a man too, and have absolutely no way of knowing such things. You projecting that such a person would be otherwise, without exposure to the Book, is not evidence of any sort.

Judging the Book somehow invalid or flawed because not all who speak of it as sacred are angels, lacks any rational foundation I am aware of. If the Book said; All who declare this to be the Word of God will be good folks, and truthful . . . then I suppose one would have some justification. But, here on my planet, anyone can say anything they wish. Now, it may be difficult for a true "believer" to say they are not, but the reverse is simply not so. If one does not believe the God of that Book is real, they have no particular reason to hesitate to claim they are a "believer" which might suit their need or fancy. Wolves don't generally dress as tigers, to sneak into the flock; they dress as sheep, naturally.

But still more important, Jesus himself was asked of the "sinners" in his company, and said this;

They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

I have never met a serious Christian, that did not readily admit that they were a sinner, as do I. It seems to be the critics that can't comprehend that Christians are NOT claiming any special status at all. It's not about us, it's about God and His Son our Lord and Saviour, and His Word.

Getting here a bit late, I read with interest and see the contradictions in John Knight's words lately and those compared to before over the last two years.

John seems to have this real need to "fit in" and be accepted by those he sees as intelligent and leaders in their area of interest, he just wants to be "one of them" and be treated respectfully so ... (ego stuff ?)

He will say very nice words back and forth when that seems possible in a most ingratiating exchange (especially with some of the ladies on Gather) ... but beware his ire IF you go against him and his views ...

He seems to be getting rather desperate lately in coming up with this Krishnamurti and "New-Age" connections that somehow "bring him up to date" from his earlier (not very long ago) much more "Fundamentalist Literal Biblical Christian" stance. I guess because that has never allowed him to "fit in" with the more intelligent and wise discussions, like a chameleon, he now sees fit to "change his colours" to "fit the situation" ... so much for claimed honesty ... something I have seen lacking in him for a very long time now as he distorts my words and meanings intentionally to make me appear other than what I am ... a natural part of his oft stated goal of discrediting me and my views ...

So John, as I have said, the people I care about (and you used to be one of them), will know via their intelligence and natural wisdom, that I speak the truth and have something worth considering in the BET (+=-), and you will be seen for just what you are ... so enjoy your whatever John, there is something for everyone, to each their own. But for one who claims to have such a Godly relationship, your actions show the dualist that you are, (+/-), as you consider yourself the protector of the GOOD GOD concepts you think you hold, against the BAD god concepts you think I hold ...

You have MUCH to learn Dear John !

Jerry,

" I read with interest and see the contradictions in John Knight's words lately and those compared to before over the last two years.'

For instance . . . Mr. god?

PS,

As Clarke can surely attest, I have made no secret of my association with Mr. Krishnamurti, and if you would quit staring into your imaginary world for a few seconds, it would dawn on you perhaps, that I have written numerous articles, beginning shortly after I arrived here, dealing with the very same matters that man dealt with.

In your dualistic universe within, I don't doubt that the whole of humanity is neatly classifiable into little camps, but here on the planet earth, people think and read and do all sorts of stuff, which has nothing whatsoever to do with your imaginary camps.

Lunatic Fringe,

Ah, now I see what you were thinking, think I. It is the matter of "literal", you question. Well, please listen carefully, and perhaps something useful will have come of the time you spent here after all;


This is what I personally see, but I suspect many others would agree: The Bible is literally, the very Word of God. Not the words of wise old men (and a couple ladies  ; ), nor the work of simply "inspired" people, acting in good "Faith" and all that. It is LITERALLY the remnants of actual words He directly caused to be written by human beings He was personally directing (in various and sundry ways).

Therefore, when reading it, one will find that it is dominated by the first person statements of a GOD, (don't excuse the pun if you don't want to  ; ) which make no sense if not read as first person statements of God. That is what a "literalist" is trying to say. Not that there is some special way to reduce the extraordinarily complex interweaving of symbol-isms and metaphorical meanings, implications, and innuendo; to render some sort of 'How To' manual, to be followed step by step. That's utterly ridiculous, and as far as I can tell, only exists in the brief flashes of imagination, revealed through the words of casual critics. ANY Biblical scholar of even the leastest caliber KNOWS you can't take the Bible literally, that's blatantly obvious at first glance.

Midnight in the kindergarten of good and evil
By Spengler

[...Call it the kindergarten of good and evil. The invention of
gadgets that show us which neurons light up when we think happy
thoughts has convinced some secular thinkers that they have found the
solution to a problem unsolved by thousands of years of philosophical
speculation.

As Canadian-American political and cultural commentator David Brooks
observed in the May 13 New York Times, "The real challenge [to
religion] is going to come from people who feel the existence of the
sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural
artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It's going to come
from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism."


"Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from
hardcore materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It
does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and
consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks
of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a
gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain
development.

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal
moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead,
people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and
attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew
Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent
experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain
(people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which
orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend
itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real. "


American Sam Harris' 2005 bestseller The End of Faith makes a nearly
identical argument, that "there will probably come a time when we
achieve a detailed understanding of human happiness, and of ethical
judgments themselves, on the level of the brain".

It seems strange to assert that "people have deep instincts for
fairness [and] empathy". Research summarized by British-born Nicholas
Wade in his 2006 book Before the Dawn shows that continuous warfare
dominated prehistoric life, such that 40% of males died in warfare.
Even stranger is the association of such an approach with Buddhism,
given that Zen Buddhism took hold in Japan as a warrior religion.

If we leave aside such quibbles and focus on the nub of the matter,
it all comes down to what Brooks calls the measurability of "elevated
spiritual states" and "transcendent experiences". It is not very
difficult to induce such an experience, nor is it particularly
interesting. If you deprive a test subject of sight, sound and all
other sensations, you will have a case of temporary insanity on your
hands.

Sensory deprivation is a cruelly effective form of torture. Something
like this can be achieved by taking certain drugs, or by staring at
one's navel and repeating a mantra long enough. Our identity depends
on a set of relationships, and if we block out those relationships,
we lose our sense of identity, or dissociate. One also can employ
sensory deprivation for enhanced concentration or relaxation, which
is why Zen is so useful to warriors and yoga is so useful to mystics.

Transcendental experience, though, may not have anything to do with a
sense of dissolving into the All. Western classical music can induce
a transcendental state of an entirely different kind. Musicians often
experience an entirely different sort of transcendental experience
while playing or singing an individual part in an orchestra or
chorus. Each musician's identity remains in sharp delineation while
hearing the other parts across space, and the progression of the
composition in time. One hears oneself play, and overhears one's
colleagues, within the teleology of the composition. The totality of
the composition has a life of its own, but it enhances rather than
dissolves the individuality of the individual performer, without
whose unique contribution the totality could not exist...


When the kindergartners speak of "consciousness" and "transcendence",
they approach the matter as handworkers: whatever their instruments
can measure is what comes to their attention. The idea that the same
neurons might light up for entirely different sorts of consciousness
never appears on their mental horizon....

The kindergartners cannot concede that humans have a soul, and
struggle to find an explanation for why we are conscious of an
individual identity. "While we know many things about ourselves in
anatomical, physiological, and evolutionary terms, we currently have
no idea why it is 'like something' to be what we are," Harris wrote.
To investigate consciousness he suggests "fasting, chanting, sensory
deprivation, prayer, meditation and the use of psychotropic drugs",
as "some of our only means of determining to what extent the human
condition can be deliberately transformed"...

Consciousness for the kindergartners is the mental state of the test
subject in the laboratory. But our consciousness extends far beyond
the walls of the laboratory, to all our countrymen or co-
religionists, and in time to our ancestors and our progeny. We exist
not for ourselves but for those to whom we owe our existence, and for
those who will owe their existence to us. We communicate through
languages that are woven together out of innumerable aphorisms,
quips, and metaphors that bind generations together. We share songs,
stories and dramas that provide points of reference across time...

Fortunately the kindergartners of brain science never will have the
opportunity to put human society into their machines
and "deliberately transform" our consciousness. Once the secular
philosophers retreated from ethics, the white-coated laboratory types
who were left in possession of the asylum can watch neurons light up
all day, without having a relevant word to say about the existential
condition of humankind.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JG15Aa02.html

midnight in the garden ... can be spoken of in words ... as a subject for discussion by those yet to experience ... but for those who have experienced ... there are no words that will do it justice.

Some people seek through meditations and drugs, and on reading Krishnamurti in their happy hippy 60's days party atmospheres ... because it is really "fun" and everybody is doing it ... some relatively few found the transcendental, but by far the most did not ... though most had their drug induced "epiphanies" repeatedly, they never put it all together into a serious spiritual awakening to get any real and lasting benefit.

Some few who then later claim to have found in the Bible such an awakening, then knock the whole earlier experience in their life as "New Age Madness" of no worth and that any who see value in it have been deluded by Satan ... because the ONLY REAL gospel is that found in the words of THE book.

What little they REALLY know is then all there needs be known to them ... as they still accuse all others of being deficient in their personal findings ...

Typical egotistical dualism ... the bane of being human ... "just a man" ... never allowing REAL truth to touch the perceived "little treasure" so fervently defended as the Only Way.

Jerry,

You are so far "in over your head" in a discussion of the sort Clarke has instigated here, that you are reduced to mere recitation of your own imaginings. You have, by your own admission, no experience, or patience for, self-observation, which is to say in the broadest term; meditation. And further, lacking any substantial understanding of the "scientific" aspects of these matters, you ramble on about things quite irrelevant to the matters at hand. Adding to this gross inadequacy to approach the actual subject Clarke carefully seeks further insight into, you obviously know virtually nothing about the Word of God, or any other significant Books which bear upon the topic in any meaningful way.

In short, your opinions of me, or my imaginary past in your mind, are not relevant. In the language of our "collective consciouness"; You're a one trick pony, and this ain't in your act.

OK Johnny Boy, knock yourself out showing how "up on all things" that you are as you "suck up" ... here. I have no doubt that in your mind, that you are the qualified one and I am the ignorant loudmouth ... suit yourself. :-)

Clarke,

I find Mr. Spengler's several points to be quite salient, and relevant, to the actual "experiential", or as sometimes called "existential", conundrum we as conscious beings face. It is not dissimilar to the apparent "brick walls": Of quantum physic's findings, which say clearly to those "with ears to hear"; You will go no further, in the direction of the fabric of the universe . . . And the "big bang" of cosmology, which says; You will go no further, in the direction of the origin of the universe . . . And Godel's proof, which says; You will go no further, in the direction of quantifying the universe . . .

It seems clear, to me anyway, that either God will solve our conundrum Himself, or here we will stay forever. Or as Mr. Zimmerman said;

"You ain't goin' nowhere."

Hoo-rah ... now that's showin em ... :-)

LF, you did good, no complaints from this end. :-)

John,
Spengler does make salient points as you say. Much of what he writes and thinks
about the current world is one-sided and bigoted. When he writes of recorded history he makes serious errors and many of his projections based on the facts he gives, as statistics and demographics do not check out as accurate. He is what is called an "Orientalist," which refers to the 19th century imperialist and colonialist view of the "East." This attitude still dominates Western political strategy, which is globalist
and also rascist. Spengler may rail against secularism, but he sees the "undeveloped world" as having no future unless it learns to build institutions and values of the West. In one way he shares Pope Benedict's view of other religions, but Spengler is not a good theologian. His interest is more political, and his views are extreme and unbalanced.

Lunatic Fringe,
Religions for the mass serve to restrain and moderate the lower instincts of humanity and in this way maintain civilzations. The scriptures do say "All must be called." A few seek to find a deeper meaning. Whether their search is "self-selective" or they are "chosen" is unimportant . It may be both.

LF,

"The Bible can turn people into people haters, but that is a general term that need not apply to you . . . "

Please realize, it is just not possible to "isolate" the influence such a thing as that Book has on people, from the totality of their natures and conditioning; Nor to trust the vague wavering ideas and images we might see of people in our imaginations. If one were not thoughtful, one could end up believing that going to the doctor was the cause of much disease and death (yeah, I know there is some truth to that  ; )

But nonetheless, I feel it is vital to get beyond the notion of a "magic pill" sort of effect the Bible could have on people, and be more realistic in approaching it. We are not a simple creature, that could be transformed in a moment, and the world is not a simple place, where a few catchy phrases or even a whole book of sayings and such, could encompass the tremendous variety of problems we face, and the intricate demands on our intelligence life makes. One must be careful, I think, to avoid wishing one were a simpleton kind of being, that did not have to wrestle with "burdens" of existence as a highly developed for of consciousness.

In a sense, I think it is the very gift of profound awareness that many are rejecting, which may lie at the heart of God's intentions for placing us in the world we confront here. Many seem to wish they were "vegetables" in a garden of endless sunlight and gentle rain . . . and so not needing the wisdom and maturity life as a child of the Living God "imposes" upon our "bliss" . . . I wonder sometimes if this matter does not lie at the heart of Satan's "rebellion". . ?

I choose to proceed with the process God has chosen for my education and eventual understanding of His ways. The Book demonstrates to me, that He knows what He's doing. Though to us, it seems beyond reach at times. It is a hard thing He has elected to do, I think . . . making more like Himself . .

Clarke,

Well, I didn't mean to endorse Mr. Spengler's views en toto . . . and to be honest, I'm not completely sure which thought belongs to which person in your comment there . . . I meant only to echo the strange impenetrability of our universe, and ourselves, which science is discovering it has no means whatsoever of cracking. Indeed, in many "fields" there seems to be "proof positive" that He just doesn't want us to see behind His curtains. In the vague realms of "sociology" and "history", I don't even bother to try anymore. We have no hope of comprehending things on such a scale. It really doesn't get simpler, as one envelops more territory, just because we invoke some formulas or theoretical axioms . . . We are ALL in over our heads in such affairs.

John,
I understood you and agree points that Spengler and some others he quoted were good. The character and content of most of what he writes is, shall I say, twisted. He thinks he is a political philosopher and his world view is right. He has a very biased view and often incorrect knowledge.

" We are ALL in over our heads in such affairs " ... Best spoken for yourself alone ... shouldn't one say, a mere man, who claims he cannot know the mind of others ?

Jerry,

Tell me, how many fingers am I holding up to the screen right now?

Probably one, the middle one.

Four . . . like I said, you're a one trick pony  ; )

Clarke,

One of the first articles I ever wrote in a technical journal was titled "Simulation, Sensitivities, and Management Decision Rules". It was an article about 'attitudes and planning' in complex situations in efforts to frame and solve important TECHNICAL problems. Mathematics and Statistics carried the brunt of the weight in the suggestions, and then (1958 as I recall) the notions and uses of of SIMULATIONS were only starting to suggest themselves for serious pragmatic use.

GOOD and/or EVIL were not involved, but formuations and searches of viable ALTERNATIVES were always present. Later on the use of complex computer powers were added in to the math and stat to find the consequences from suggested OTHER and MANY alternative scenarios in order to generate UNDERSTANDINGS of the complex underlying problem that was being investigated. (Later on I had the opportunitity to get some of this investigative methodology for analyses of potentially very dangerous military problems.)

Investigating important problems with powerful 'alternative search and conclude' methods with alternative (empirical) parametric specifications and various contrasting models presents analysts and decision-makers with powerful intellectual scope. (String Theory inquiries about possible explanations of their complex mathematical seeking out of the possible meanings and explanations of existence, say, of 'particles and non-particles' can be based upon consistency between the analysts' mathematics and the demand for accompanying consistencies with the notion of a FULL, SINGLE, CONSISTENT, EXPLANATORY THEORY.)

So it is my contention, and it is in the fullest sense in agreement with you I believe, that Evil's role (terrible words) is nothing more than a suggestion of error and incompleteness which can be discovered by proper analytical chararacterization of alternative (event) scenarios. ERROR (EVIL?) seems to me to usually be a SCOPE problem rather than anything else. (i.e. there are too many missing pieces when the action problem is being considered.)

An easy way to gain some greater objectivity would be to demand -- say -- that GROUPS OF POLICY PLANNERS or ACTION AGENTS (say in the White House) must play sort of GAME that says in the IRAN CASE -- "I am the ruler of Iran and work with these colleagues of mine here in Iran. How am I going to deal with this scenario that the 'enemy' (say the USA) is planning against us?" A simpler formulation : Our President with his likely staff in the particular situation could be as totally briefed as possible.Then in the live SIMULATION mode, presume that he was the leader (or leaders) of Iran. Then : "WHAT WOULD 'I' do if the USA was planning this XYZ event against me?" [Or any other number of other possible scenario events.]. You know: Get in the other guy's shoes and head -- and imagine intelligently -- with help and criticism..

Dick

Dick,
This article poses the same question regarding Iran and the US:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977398872
"While the obstinacy of both sides may indeed be the superficial cause of the breakdown in relations, the real reason is that neither side even tries to understand the other. The cynical reader may label me as naive to even think that politicians in the world's only superpower should care about understanding an adversary's perspective. To a cynic, there is nothing to understand. Power is might, and might makes right. The US has power and it will do as it wishes. End of story!

But if the US is serious about negotiating with Iran, what does Washington need to understand about the Iran of today? What should it know about Iran's power structure? What is the input required of advisors and Iran experts for a US president and for other senior decision-makers? "

All good food for thought ... all depends upon the intentions held.

John, as for the numbers of fingers, that is objectivity, it is the subjective mind that I attune to, the thoughts, the deeper intentions ... the middle finger in that case. :-)

Dick (and Clarke),

Well, yes, one could say that evil is ultimately a form of erroneousness, but that seems to me to be begging the question. While a serial killer is certainly in error, one is hardly confronting the question of evil, by noting that.

Hell was developed by religions as the answer for evil (and to keep fear in the picture) in that God would send evil doers there ... both an attempt to instill preventive fear in potential evil doers, as well as to differentiate between them and the faithful who followed "orders," and those being promised the opposite of the evil doers, a heaven rather than a hell.

Of course that just freed up the non-religious, who did not believe in such threats, to do even more evil ... which scared (hopefully the hell out of) the religious ones, all the more to rely on the dogma, and stay fast to the church.


If by some chance religions early on believed the spiritual truths as they were probably told, that (+=-), and that all was not about ONLY this one lifetime, that there were, and would be, "other" spiritual experiences to incarnate into, and that Karma did in fact assure that like begets like (eventually) and that there were really no such things as "innocent" victims and "accidents" ... then probably every one of us would be believers in the truth and evil as such would have ceased to be a factor long ago ... IMnsHO.

Jerry Kays: Your view of how "hell" came about is good as far as it goes. One thing I think that people forget is that God is not stupid. God, through the religious phenomenon, acts as a parent to all mankind, teaching us in little steps at a time and in allegories that we can appreciate in our adolescent minds. Revealed religion has taught "little white lies" in the past to get points across that could not be made otherwise. For instance, through the Koran we learn that heaven is paved with gold and has flowing water (quite delightful to a desert people) and that men will be rewarded with a lot of beautiful hoari eyed women. Zoroaster taught us about the devil (deev) and hell, which was further elucidated upon later in Christianity. These are equivalent to telling small children that babies are brought by a stork. The babies cannot understand and appreciate the complexity of actual child berthing. And people, even today, cannot understand the "delights" and "wonders" of "heaven" which is not a dimensional place as on earth. And they cannot understand the "sadness" and "regrets" that can be the result in the other world of not having developed spiritually in this world. Therefore, while neither heaven nor hell is as described by the past messengers from God, they have and do serve as approximations of the kind of rewards and penalties that can come from developing one's esoteric and spiritual essence or allowing it to waste away. The "wings" of angels, the "harps" and all those other things are simply allegorical allusions to provide some idea without needing to become over technical.

Jerry,

" . . . it is the subjective mind that I attune to . . . "

Yes, that is your "trick". You constantly look for silly or stupid things which you can speak of various other people hypothetically believing, and then present something you find less silly or stupid, and declare yourself wise. It's an extremely limited way to approach things, and amounts to little more, in most cases, than seeking the silliest and stupidest ideas one can imagine, intentionally. Not exactly an amazing trick, but satisfying to many.

John ... yakity yak yak yak ....

Jerry . . . truthity truth truth truth . . .   ; )

The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:9

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. . .
Matthew 15:18-19

Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
Isaiah 1:4-5

:-)

LF,

"influential darkness"

Now it's my turn laugh. Did you even read this thread?

Lunatic Fringe et al,

Thanks first to Clarke for ginning up such a provocative topic to get wrapped up in 'keyed in' commentary. As I read all the materials I am astounded by the varieties of thought and feeling that enter deliberations. The 'parented' concepts of 'GOOD & EVIL' are deeply, most deeply, embefdded in us all. Just using the two words together brings into view a MAJOR issue, and suggests the need for the fullest kind of UNDERSTANDING(S?).

I'm in a middle of reviews of some of the complexities (and their linkages) within the field of 'string theory' at this time. One most outstanding conceptual implication has to do with -- what are called -- SUPERPARTNERS, along with SUPER-SYMMETRIES. Years ago I was talking to a good friend of mine -- now passed on -- Filmer Northrop. While mutually exchanging thoughts he noticed that at times when talking, I put my hands together in a near 'praying' geometric configuration. He said : "Dick, how does NATURE build such symmetry?" I got the point. How does such a complex CREATIVE PROCESS (within the scope of EMBRYOLOGY, certainly) BUILD 'mirror images': PARTNERS. Good question. Are contradictions, paradoxes, contrasts ways by which the MIND is challenged and grown by the wisdoms of PROCESS?

The questtion then is : how do we come to understand -- UNDERSTAND -- the nature of the creation of the REAL (physically and spiritually extant) construction process. What IS information and thought and logic and analysis? By diddling around with strings, and quarks, and photons, and gravitons, and DNAs, and modes of DNA-protein expression, and the 'plans of an infinite-eternal Process and/or God as she, he, it deals with partialities (FINITENESSES), how do we FIT everything together into a coherent, consistent, unique(?), EXPLANATION of what we seem to know and experience? . When we have the FULLEST mental picture and THEORY we may have UNDERSTANDINGS that are far better than we did before, and then the dualistic character of the SUPER PAIR -- GOOD & EVIL -- will be UNIFIED into a KNOWN Grandeur that assists the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS in its never ending quest to implement our minds that 'do somethings and make varieties of stuffs' -- like CREATING ever more remarkable finite 'things and thoughts'.

This dichotomous 'pair', GOOD & EVIL provide us an intellectualizing mode with which to explore the domains of ever better EXPLANATORY THEORIES (by addressing issues of error, incompleteness, complexity, chaos) which will eventually be shorn of their seemingly opposite partial MEANINGS. ONENESS WILL APPEAR. Completeness and Incompleteness will have played the game out. I THINK!

WE will then reflect and know the gifts of the wisdom of our inherent and inherited LUNACIES. Is that what dreaming, and scheming and 'growing human consciousness' (COLLECTIVELY) are all about? Heaven ON OUR Earth?

Dick

Dick writes:

By diddling around with strings, and quarks, and photons, and gravitons, and DNAs, and modes of DNA-protein expression, and the 'plans of an infinite-eternal Process and/or God as she, he, it deals with partialities (FINITENESSES), how do we FIT everything together into a coherent, consistent, unique(?), EXPLANATION of what we seem to know and experience? .

Here is the dilemma of a modern worldview just filled with 'particulars' but lacking the 'universal' that would lend meaning to their existence. Here is the despair bred by the scientism of 'evolution'. . .

The evolutionary worldview has no plausible explanation for the existence of evil nor any grounds for labelling human actions 'good' or 'evil' . . .

-Mark

Dick,
There is a Latin proverb, apparently children used it in skipping: "Tu, si animo regeris, rex es; si corpore, servus". This means: "You, if you are ruled by your mind, are a king; but if by your body, a slave."

The this refers to the reason of understanding, what Shakespeare called "sovereign reason."

Reason is more than logic: it is balanced understanding in its practical aspect. perhaps conscience and consciousness taken as a whole. Shakespeare's plays illustrate the desirability of reason ruling human passion, and the possibility, but difficulty of realising this.
The struggle between reason and unreason is the ground of so many of his plays, such as "All's Well That Ends Well", "Hamlet" (where the phrase 'sovereignty of reason' is found), "King Lear", and "Measure for Measure". Reason is so large a concept that it can be mistaken for "virtue", and there is overlap, but whereas virtue connotes an ingrained habit of thinking and action, reason is the guide which directs virtuous thought and action. Also, reason is Shakespeare's firmament, because the good fruit of all the struggles and catastrophes is the re-establishment of a new rational order: this is reflected in the history plays, but most of all in the last plays: "The Winter's Tales,"Pericles", and "The Tempest." It is as if one could say that heaven is reason and hell is unreason.

Mark,

Your comment is so very 'on spot' to my mind, that it actually speaks to the very nature of "evil" itself, in the Biblical sense. For the very function of human intelligence must needs be to discern what is truly in the humans best interest to do, and yet, the whole thrust of "modern" inquiry revolves around the assumption that there is no such thing as 'good', which simply means, in the Biblical sense; what is in the best interest of the human to do. Plato spoke to this odd form of attempting to "discover" the order of the universe, while simultaneously denying the universe is actually ordered;


"Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause from that without which the cause would not be able to act as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do, like people groping in the dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it a name that does not belong to it. That is why one man surrounds the earth with a vortex to make the heavens keep it in place, another makes the air support it like a wide lid. As for their capacity of being in the best place they could possibly be put, this they do not look for, nor do they believe it to have any divine force, but they believe that they will some time discover a stronger and more immortal Atlas to hold everything together more, and they do not believe that the truly good and "binding" binds and holds them together."

Dick asks; " . . . how do we FIT everything together into a coherent, consistent, unique(?), EXPLANATION of what we seem to know and experience?"   As though the very fact that we "have experience", is somehow independent of the universe we experience. Mr. Krishnamurti often tried to point out this strange separating of the being, from it's own "being", by saying;

"You are the world, and the world is you."

Hey John,

Thanks for actually addressing a comment my way! Sometimes I feel like the invisible man. I think that folks think "If we ignore him perhaps he will go away".

Good stuff in the main but you write:

For the very function of human intelligence must needs be to discern what is truly in the humans best interest to do, and yet, the whole thrust of "modern" inquiry revolves around the assumption that there is no such thing as 'good', which simply means, in the Biblical sense; what is in the best interest of the human to do.

I would part ways with you slightly here. The very function of the human intelligence is to think God's thoughts after Him and bring glory to the Almighty by thus doing. As for 'good', it is objective and stands totally outside of man. It is actually the character of the Living God - a standard that He has revealed to us (not exhaustively, but truly nonetheless). What man does or does not do, what his best interest is or what advantages he gleans by doing good has nothing to do with what 'good' is. God is good and 'good' is God.
I wonder if Mr. Krishnamurti would put that in his pipe and smoke it?
Thanks John!

-Mark

Dick,

Whatever "explanation" one might come up with, as to how the many constituent "parts" of the totality of the actual order we behold "fit" together, cannot possibly be more orderly than the "foundation" of that percieved universe itself, which is us, the beholder. When you finally get all those details placed in their proper positions . . . you will have simply arrived at the starting point again. Here we are, witnesses to an infinite order, which is us. No matter how one explains it, the explainer them-self is the true mystery. For how in the world could the consciousness find an explanation in the constituant parts of existence, that somehow supersedes that consciousness itself? All the parts are each LESS than the whole.

It's as though one came upon a marvelous machine, that did some wonderful task . . . and began to study the materials of each constituent part, in an attempt to "discover" the true nature of the mind that made the machine. The nature of the maker is revealed not in the details of it's construction, but in the actual work the machine does.

Everywhere "science" looks, it finds order. Finding more and more order in the "machine" we call the universe, can never "explain" the fact that it is orderly. Each part is itself ONLY orderly within the universe we behold. One can rest assured, that there is indeed vast orderliness within each aspect, for it somehow adds up to an unspeakably ordered 'here', 'now'. It just don't matter how many turtles there are, it's GOT to be "turtles all the way down". The question remains; What is that pile of turtles standing on? Is there is, or is therr ain't: God? You can't find the answer in the pile of turtles.

But you can ask God. If He don't answer, you've lost nothing. But if He does . . . well, that changes EVERYTHING, doesn't it?


Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me.

Mark,

"The very function of the human intelligence is to think God's thoughts after Him and bring glory to the Almighty by thus doing."

Perhaps you are a bit too used to dealing with those who do not "see" the wisdom of the Book, for you don't seem to recognize that the "good" I speak of is none other than to do the will of God. THAT, is what is in the best interest of a man to do. Please keep in mind, that I "met" God . . . and do not think and speak of Him as a hypothetical anymore. He is a reality to me. An "objective" fact in my world.

He hath showed thee, O man, what is good: And what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to walk humbly with thy God?


What Mr. Krishnamurti was saying, I think, is not at all different than pointing out that the world we conceive of, and "see", is in fact something within us, and not something we can "count on", as though an independent source of information and truth. It matters not what "authority" we conjure up, either we "get it" ourselves, or we don't know what the hell we're talking about. There may be millions of scientists, but each person's understanding, stands alone, or it is an illusion. "We" can't understand anything.


PS - I ALWAYS notice the words you quote from that Book, and consider them carefully.

Hi John,

you write:

It matters not what "authority" we conjure up, either we "get it" ourselves, or we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

Real authority is not conjured up. Authority is real and universal because it finds its source in God. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is legal and is binding upon us ALL because the words were graven in stone by the very finger of God.

"We" can't understand anything.

When Moses returned from Mt. Sinai carrying the two sacred tables of the Law, he found the homeboys worshipping a golden calf. I guarantee you that, to a man, "WE" or "THEY" knew they had done something diabolical.
When Israel was carried away by the Babylonians into captivity, "WE" again understood that they had forfeited the protection of the Almighty.
Finally, God's Church is universal in that it understands what the Father has wrought through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. "WE" get it, "WE" understand. . . One log will only burn for awhile if separated out from the midst of the fire. Keep the logs together, however, and they will burn bright and burn hot.
-Mark

P.S. Thanks for the P.S.!

Mark,

What can I say? A man is telling me that I am wrong, for "WE" understand the Word of God . . .

It cannot be both true that God is fair, and God gives preference to those in a particular group. Fairness DEMANDS that each person be held accountable for their own actions. Naturally, in supporting the righteousness of the society, one is supporting their own chances for being righteous. And, conversely, if one does not fight the corrosive forces within a society, they enhance their own potential corruption. YET, who is actually more righteous than the one who stands alone, against wickedness or injustice? Is there even a remote possibility that such a person would be overlooked by God in the day of judgment? Perish the thought.

We will stand alone in that day. That is the day when justice will be served, not in the days of flesh and blood confusion and associations with circumstances we cannot control. The wicked who benifit from the righteousness of a good society, will not avoid the day of reckoning, and will be that much more in danger of God's wrath. For to whom much is given, much is expected.

Does not our Lord speak to this notion of "group justice"?, when;

"There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
I tell you , Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwell in Jerusalem?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."


Yes, of course a group that acts foolishly, or wisely, will reap what they sow; For that is the nature of THIS world, which by design I say, demands that we relate to our fellows. That we teach, and learn, from each other. And help those that are in trouble, if we can, for that is a part of helping ourselves, both in this world, and in the eyes of our Father, who is kind even unto the unthankful, and the evil.

PS -"Real authority is not conjured up."

Then, naturally, I was speaking of those that are. I do not conjure the sun's rising, it rises regardless of me. So to the Book, it is something I can hold in my hand . . . But, one can get confused, obviously, if one strays too far from it's words . . .

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation . . .

I just came from another article on "Evil" at:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977396422

Dear ALL,

Think of 'evolution' along two dimensions through TIME : (1) The first, spiritually with a set of Great Books and Prophets to do the stage setting for the entry into the second great period. The second, (2) is the period when WE -- the created creatures of the powerful (yet to be known as fully known -- UNDERSTOOD) process that generates 'ISNESS' in multitudes of diverse designs DESIGN WAYS TO KNOW THAT WONDER IS A PART OF OUR DIVINE HERITAGE.

Enter the multitude of sciences, technologies and many written and unwritten BOOKS that REQUIRE organized intelligences to create, read and UNDERSTAND in order to FIND the workings of the mysterious -- EVER PRESENT UNSEEN(?) PROCESS. Unimaginable, well organized and organizing entities are brought into LIVING existences. HOW? WHY? There is to be a 3rd period in the making. Here we are Now entering that second period with insights to be known -- eventually.

Thus period 1 gives us the path from FAITH and SPIRITUALITY (through many religions and finite views) to the coming SECOND period : the period when via MATERIALITY we see and UNDERSTAND the infinite 'MORE-THAN' that remains hidden (for a while?). The UNIVERSE (or UNIVERSES) are places where TRANSFORMATIONS thrive. We're all in PROCESS under the direction of NATURE'S LAWS/GOD/THE CREATING UNIVERSAL PROCESS.

I'M OFF TO MAINE TO THRIVE IN ITS GLORIES FOR A COUPLE OF 'LEARNING' DAYS'.

Dick

I see that Lunatic Fringe has just deleted all of his many entries ... refreshing my memory of that being his usual practise, which had I remembered before could have saved the time taken to respond to him in the first place ...

Such activities are really a form of willful vandalism resulting in the destruction of the continuity of every-one's efforts to maintain thread integrity ... rather disgusting really.

Dick, you are always learning, I marvel at that, and Maine appears to be a great place to continue it ... enjoy.

Clark wrote: "It is through the negative, the affirmative appears, through the evil, the good appears."

Yes, when contemplating the ramifications and consequences of good and evil, faithful objective reasoning usually yields positive results, void of prioritization on the physical restraints of this existence.

Examples of heaven and hell have always been with us on earth. The only reason I can see for people choosing evil is because they really don't believe in God. They take what they want by any means to make the most of what they consider survival of the fittest. This dog-eat-dog existence originates from their primordial, underlying, genetic programming within the mundane of the most basic of homosapiens among us. Pity them, if they know not what they do, and if they do, we should understand the darkness from where it comes.

Without good, the opposite (evil) can not exist. Without evil, the opposite (good) can not exist. In Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange," he depicted a future world void of good. Moviegoers were well aware of the implications of total evil because they knew the difference between one extreme and the other. But those existing in such a world would be but a tree with no visible opposite. They would merely exist in their own void without any understanding of truth, love, hope, joy, enlightenment, or hearts desire. They would not have any choice since the opposite was nonexistent.

Being that good and evil are so diametrically, philosophically, and theologically opposed to each other, they exist to give us purpose and a choice for the Light or darkness; our salvation or our purgatory. That choice is either based on faith and enlightenment or on limited and restricted perceptions in a Godless existence.

Simon,

While I might put some of your statements somewhat differently, I think you have captured the essence of the thing rather well. The notion of "opposites" is a bit troubling to me, for I think more along the lines of greater or lesser order, in thought or action, rather than true opposites. Which is also to say that there is often more than one "right" response to what one encounters . . . and I think it is possible to become overly focused on the degree to which a given response resembles through oppositional thinking, the antithesis of what seems to be the "wrong" response. There seems to me to be a sort of "tying down" of the creative mind, when the concepts of opposites are taken too seriously.

As I said though, I am in agreement with the general thrust of what you explained.

Simon writes:

That choice is either based on faith and enlightenment or on limited and restricted perceptions in a Godless existence.

I disagree. Just because a person knows what is the right thing to do doesn't mean that he will do it. Modern society wants to attribute evil to a lack of something - always a lack of something. If only she were properly educated, if only he had more money, if only she had a better environment or access to helath care - evil would be assuaged or even eliminated. But the hard fact of the matter is that its not what we lack, a negative, it's what we have inside of us, sin, a positive that causes the Eagle Scout to murder, the priest to molest, the mother to drown her children in the bathtub. . .

. . .but I am carnal, sold under sin.

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Romans 7:14-24

Why won't man come to terms with his inherent sinfulness?

-Mark

Responding to a local newspaper's essay prompt - "What Is Wrong With The World?",
writer G.K. Chesterton wrote incisively, "I am."

Mark,

I think, but cannot claim to know, that your "disagreement" with Simon, is not dissimilar to my own stated "objection" to the notion of opposites. Please note that Simon did not say one's choice is either "Godly" or "ungodly", but that our choices are BASED on our awareness of such "realities" as we perceive the universe to inherently be founded upon. That is not to say our choices will be "God-like", merely because we "believe" in God. As I was trying to say to Simon, oppositional thinking can render a false dichotomy. And the notion of man being actually "evil" by nature, rather than "sinful" and thus vulnerable to evilness, springs I believe, from the overly oppositional juxtaposition of God's virtue, and man's fallibility.

We are not the "opposite" of God, I say, but rather the clumsy "children" of Him. There is a goodness in man, though it is often stifled by pride, and other forms of fear. In Jesus, we see the goodness come to "perfection", which is a Biblical word for maturation, completeness, fulfillment. In seeking to emulate him, we are doing that which is RIGHT, for a lowly thing such as we are. Not achieving that fulfilment, is forgiven by virtue of our "right choice" of example to follow, says this clumsy child.

Hey John,

A clumsy child wrote:

There is a goodness in man, though it is often stifled by pride, and other forms of fear. In Jesus, we see the goodness come to "perfection", which is a Biblical word for maturation, completeness, fulfillment. In seeking to emulate him, we are doing that which is RIGHT, for a lowly thing such as we are. Not achieving that fulfilment, is forgiven by virtue of our "right choice" of example to follow. . .

As much as I would like to snuggle up to an inherent goodness in mankind, I don't think scripture leaves any room for this view:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Romans 3:10-12

The doctrine of total human depravity is closer to the truth as it is revealed in the Bible. Jesus was not goodness come to perfection - as though he was some super-evolved human being to which we might aspire. Jesus was perfection - He was God incarnate, the spotless Lamb of God come to fulfil the Law and atone for the sin of His people.
There is no goodness in man just as there is no light in the moon. We must not boast about the good that we do for what do we have that we did not receive?
Remember your Dad's credo; One drop of s--- ruins a whole glass of water. . .

-Mark

Mark,

God made man . . . God loves man.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good


For God so loved the world, that he gave is only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.


I believe you neglect to take into account your own "evil" thoughts . . . I already have a Lord.

John,

you write:
God made man . . . God loves man.

Yes. . . God loves some men; some men He does not love. . .

and you quote:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good

Take this passage in context. This was before the Fall. Everything God made was good, the Fall changed that. . .

and:

but that the world through him might be saved.

saved from what?

and:

I believe you neglect to take into account your own "evil" thoughts . . . I already have a Lord.

Yes. . . and Yes again!

-Mark

Mark,

God was not shocked, or "foiled", by man's fallibility . . . don't you think?

He knows what He's doing, and understands what He made. Nothing is essentially changed about His Creation . . . this IS His plan.

I truly think you are overly critical of our kind . . . and may be a bit "Jerryesque" in these matters, in the fixation on "oppositional" concepts. Man can be both good AND far less good than God. As we say, one drop, and all that. But God has the power to clean that water, for with Him, all things are possible. The emphasis placed on the "corruption" of man's nature, and "mind", in the Book, is I believe, a much needed admonition to be extremely careful in one's own estimation of oneself and those who may claim some form of godliness. I don't believe it is intended to provoke endless self flagellation. Are we not washed clean by the blood of the lamb? Is Christ not able to save and restore?

If I raise my head up high, please give it a whack for me . . . but if I bow my head to him . . . please let me have my small peace therein.

Hi John,

you write:

Man can be both good AND far less good than God

No. . .if man transgresses in one itty-bitty area, he breaks the whole Law. One little drop permeates and ruins the whole glass of water and makes it utterly unfit for consumption. Jesus told the rich young ruler (who was quite taken with himself) that there is no one GOOD but God. . .
You reckon good in your statement above by your own standard. God's standard is quite different. He demands perfection - nothing less. . .

and you write:

The emphasis placed on the "corruption" of man's nature, and "mind", in the Book, is I believe, a much needed admonition to be extremely careful in one's own estimation of oneself and those who may claim some form of godliness. I don't believe it is intended to provoke endless self flagellation.

It is intended to help us accurately diagnose our woeful condition. It is intended to drive us to the one Great Physician Who can work the cure and bring us back to the Father. If you don't realize you're drowning, you will not call out for the lifeguard. . .

and finally, triumphantly:

Are we not washed clean by the blood of the lamb? Is Christ not able to save and restore?

I thought you said there was no such thing as 'we'. But, yes. . . a thousand times YES - the blood washes us clean. Christ alone, the perfect lamb, is the propitiation for His people's sin and promises a day when sin and evil will be nothing but a memory. . .

-Mark

Mark,

Your pointing out that I used the word 'we', puts me in an awkward position. I used it not in the vague sense of a vast imaginary group of "knowers", that somehow validates what I say, but in speaking to another man, to refer to something we ostensibly have in common. If you cannot grasp the difference, you cannot "keep up" with me, in this discussion. If you can grasp the difference . . . you are "playing" with me in this matter.

That leaves no good reason to continue here.

You also failed to deal with my first, and foundational statement, regarding "this" being His plan. That He loved us, and saw us as good, knowing our fallible nature, and was not "frustrated" in any meaningful sense, by our "fall" in the garden. Here again I am left with no good reason to continue this discussion, for either you cannot see the significance of that to the question of His "approval" of man, and thus by definition, our inherent "goodness" . . . which if true removes any hope I have that you can "keep up" . . . Or you DO see the implications of what I pointed out, and would rather not follow my reasoning.


I will be happy to resume our exploration of the question, at any time you feel more inclined to actually do that. For now, I suggest you study 'Hebrews' 5, as it deals with this in a way that would benifit you, as I see it.

Take care my friend.

Dear ALL,

A few weeks ago I began to develop some 'look sees' at our historically important 'prophets' SEEN AS ORDINARY HUMAN BEINGS, but with perhaps DIFFERENT roles to play as our EARTH, and US PEOPLES emerged and developed and created in ourselves -- an ever growing personal consciousness. In other words I regarded the prophets as possessing special roles as both teachers and exemplars. I believe that the second period when complete will have provided a most sound basis for the notion of our GODHEAD; the CUP -- the Creating Universal Process. Our Prophets will then be seen to have served THEIR GOD-GIVEN roles for US ALL.

My major premise is based upon my developing view that there are FINALLY to be THREE periods in the spiritual-material EVOLUTION of PERSONKIND : (1) the WORD domination period, (2) the SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY domination period (in which we are NOW currently situated), and (3) the CONSOLIDATION integrated period in which 'IDEALS imagery' , and the fullest human understandings of the nature and structures of both the GODHEAD and our MATERIAL universe, are known both well and generally.

In this last period -- with a full kind of theoretical and pragmatic set of operational concepts we PEOPLE -- guided by the gifts of knowledge provided by the teachings of our prophets (based on their transmitted human.finite experiences and 'forecasts) and our own more common explorations of (a) How the Universe was created from both 'the WORD' and from 'the SCIENCES' (MIND and MATTER) ; (b) How WE THE PEOPLE are NOW (in the coming last period of consolidation) actively display how the interdependent ALL OF US intend to select and do generate the major CREATIVE paths to those GOALS that are based on the compositions of this planet -- OUR EARTH. Different rolles for different sets of universe aliens on the billions of other planets can be surmised to be doing the same -- I PRESUME (with literally no evidence other than reasonable conjecture that in our Universe (or Universes) WE ARE NOT ALONE.

IT WILL BE FASCINATING TO SEE IF EVIL IS THEN ABSORBED INTO A MOST SIMPLE IDEA LIKE THE GROWTH OF A COMPLEX NEW CREATING DYNAMIC. Some thing like the design of a seeking after JUSTICE in an ever friendly way. Sort of like the Hegelian dialectic in ACTION. Thesis --- Anti-thesis --- SYNTHESIS.

Dick

First off, (been away a while), I will say that Mark has an extremely limited and very negative view of mankind in relationship to his own narrow biblical views.

Second I would say that John is either completely misunderstanding my views (doubtful) or just distorting them as a part of his ongoing campaign to discredit me ... IE :

"" "Jerryesque" in these matters, in the fixation on "oppositional" ""

Because anyone with at least one half of a brian knows well that I stress polarized oppositions for the sole purpose of finding a peaceful balance in between them based upon (+=-) rather than upon (+/-).

As for John's recent responce to Mark, I would commend him for it (somewhatly anyway).


And then to Dick, I say RIGHT ON !!!

Dick,
In every age there are a few creative individuals and small groups who change things, synthesize knowledge and introduce new values and ideas. So it will be for many ages to come. Only a few are able to internalize "reason" and "unreason," the affirmitave and the negative and achieve a new order and vision that can be introduced into life and humanity. Science, Art, Philosophy, Religion don't change anything . They are means to make change or prevent change. Change comes from individuals who can change themselves.

Jerry,

I have attempted, numerous times, to explain to you that while some of what you speak of, is in general agreement with what I find good and reasonable; The words one speaks, are not actual "things". A human being can speak virtually any words, and does not by the ones he speaks "generate" himself, as the embodiment of the meaning of those words. Many beyond calculation, are those who spoke words that made good sense, verbally speaking, yet themselves were not actually "living up to" the potentially wonderful things their words invoked.

When you say a term, like "unconditional love", the phrase linguistically implies something vast, and beneficent, of course . . . but that does not make the speaker the manifestation of the words they speak. As a parallel to this "gap" between merely saying noble words, and actually being the thing the words conjure in our minds, consider that we have a President who speaks of spreading freedom, and may even believe he is bringing about just that. Yet, you and I don't believe his words and thoughts actually MAKE him what the words he speaks might imply. Picking high sounding terms, does not raise the understandings and actions of the one doing the picking.


You are ever using high sounding language, but I can see that what you are actually describing with those noble terms, is not particularly profound or elegant. You refuse to drop the high sounding words, as though without them as the "stage" upon which you are "playing", you will not be recognizable, and I think that is true, in a sense. You would not be recognizable to yourself.

I believe you are a "narcissist", more than a Prophet. To a narcissist, the concept that their words and actions are less than wondrous, is not available, but that does not mean such concepts are impossible, in realty. That you scoff at humility, as if merely limitted to some sort of posturing, is a rather telling behaviour . . . as it means you have no awareness of such things existing in yourself. In that instance I say; You oughta know.

John, you say in part : "" ... When you say a term, like "unconditional love", the phrase linguistically implies something vast, and beneficent, of course . . . but that does not make the speaker the manifestation of the words they speak. As a parallel to this "gap" between merely saying noble words, and actually being the thing the words conjure in our minds ""

And I wonder what ever gave you the idea that I am representing myself as God with unconditional love ?

By the same token, am I to consider that you yourself in believing and following your Bible that you are Christ even, let alone God ?

All I have ever claimed, is to have a relationship to God,. a God that is unconditionally loving and truthful ... He to me and I to Him (or She as I sometimes say).

I have always maintained that my relationships with others, such as with you, are by the freedoms of the Golden Rule, allowed to be whatever I desire them to be, that what goes around comes around ... and I also know that to be a two way street, even in the case of those not yet believing it so.

That there are no accidents, there is a time, place, and reason for everything. That none can hurt us unless it is with the permission of ourselves, both lower (ego) and higher (Soul), self and Self ... thus if you or I give each other grief here on Gather, it is all a part of the greater plan of the "learning" of cause and effect. All I say here to you, is done with a partnership in the Spiritual sense ... God knows all about each of us and will sort it out and karmically take care of it, I rely on that and count on it.

I know the truth that has set me free ... free to be me ... with God's blessing ! Thus I claim nothing more than my understanding of my relationship to God granted to me ... and that includes being an apprentice god ... NOT by YOUR terms ... but by the terms I am aware of.

As for the president of the USA and what he says and does, that is a whole different thing. He claims what he will and does what he will ... among those things is his relationship to God, something I would classify as very exoteric.

As for what you think that I should "act" like, that is only your idea, get over it. I am not causing anyone's deaths, and the most hurt I do is the insult taken by sensitive egos that deserve it. IMnsHO.

So all of your "sour grapes" about me, is but your own egotistical "stretching" of everything and anything negative that you can contrive that makes you feel superior to me in the eyes of other readers here on Gather ... at least you hope so. Of course that requires your attempts to put me down in order for you to appear relatively up.

I am quite confident that most readers here recognise what is going on between us and as long as you keep doing what you are, I will be reminding you of what I see going on. I have attempted repeatedly over the last two years to make some "peace" with you only to have it thrown back in my face with just what you have been doing ... what goes around comes around.

Jerry,

"I have always maintained that my relationships with others, such as with you, are by the freedoms of the Golden Rule, allowed to be whatever I desire them to be, that what goes around comes around ... and I also know that to be a two way street"

Herein lies the only "hope" I can find in awakening you to a new thing. What you speak of there, is not the actual"Golden Rule" . . . it is what I will call; The Law of Reciprocity. It is not what Jesus was telling of, as his way, but rather the way he was telling folks was distasteful to God. He speaks of this difference here;

But I say unto you which hear:
Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefuly use you.
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
And as ye would that men should do to you, do also to them likewise.
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them

You see, Jerry, yours is the "old" way, which Jesus speaks of as not sufficiently gracious in the eyes of God. Those that are unaware of the ultimate outcome, of living by the "Law" of reciprocity, do not grasp the beuty of Christ's "Golden Rule", but rather see it as a form of insanity . . . of self deprication and abuse. But God has made us so that through a great sensitivity to our awareness of the situation another faces, we may "intuitively" do a higher form of elegant action. Those bound by the Law of "Self", cannot see the situation another faces, for their eyes are ever beholding their own.

I cannot give you what the Book calls "eyes to see, and ears to hear" the profound wisdom of this way of Jesus, and you will never understand me, or anyone who truly sees that man as their Lord, until your "eyes and ears" are opened. Only God can do such opening, and that is why humble submission to His will, is so vital to the "evolution" of a human to the higher level of God's intention for us. The higher, is "lower", from our perspective, but not His. He too is a "servant", and it is indeed His Highest Office.

You must shed your "narcissistic" shell, and that will be extremely difficult for you, and may even be impossible, But I tell you the truth; With God, all things are possible.

John, as usual, YOU have taken the low road and claimed it the high, either purely out of ignorance of the difference because you have yet to experience the high road, or just as an ego trait that truly knows nothing better ... probably the two traits combined.

What you seem NOT aware of is that it is you that requires the very "messages" you are quoting to me, it is you that needs to understand them and it is you that never will understand as long as you are so wrongly convinced that you already do ... I already understand fully and practise those messages, the esoteric side, not your exoteric side, it is really sad that you think of all of this as you do and attempt to make me wrong and the misinformed when in fact it is you that is so ...

I will admit that under the concept of (+=-) there is room naturally for both, and I can allow you to even "call" yourself the (+) in the matter if it makes you feel better, I have stated that before more than once, you can be the Christ and call me the Anti-Christ IF it makes you feel better because I trust completely that God knows the truth of that.

So you can dream on, all you want that you know higher (or lower, however you want to justify for yourself) truths and think that there may be "hope" for my condition in knowing also, and that you are somehow because of it "ahead" of me on the "path to God" ... sad really ... I suggest that you John diligently pray to your Father God for advice on this ... I doubt that you have or even would, your ego pride stands in the way.

IMnsHO.

Jerry
You and John have different approaches. You don't see when you are describing similar experiences. and there is truth in both.
I think both of you would have better spared others from debating about your views ad infinitum on this thread. Much of it is a going over your "perennial" views, not to speak of each others' intelligence. I repeat, you both have similar experience.

Jerry,
If I have sensation of my body I can become aware of my higher nature. By direct experiencing of my physical being I can approach my lower nature. The lower nature becomes, as it were, active through my awareness of it. This approach brings me to my higher nature but the higher nature is passive. Deeper awareness of my intention and will changes the polarities, and makes the higher nature active. Between higher and lower nature, held apart by an impartial awareness, is the seat of REAL I. Gurdjieff says, "Behind REAL I lies God."

This is no "secret." It is not "esoteric," it is simply what one can know through applying one's intelligence to seek truth. Very few make this effort because they are afraid of dying , they are afraid of others and they wish for happiness. Religions offer ways to deal with their fear. Societies do the same: they reward them for doing what society demands to be successful. Few wish to know themselves or believe it's possible. It would shatter their illusion that most of what they think, feel and do is who they are, and mostly the result of old, learned reactions to ordinary life

Clarke, I respect your opinion because I see it more informed and less "conservative" than many.

I do regret sometimes that John and I seem to take over threads ... but I usually justify that in that we are either at least somewhat within the subject area, or that the thread may be past it's prime anyway for most commenters, thus I see these interchanges as actually extending the life of threads ... just my view, and it is your thread to make those decisions as you might be doing here (?).


As for the differences in our "views" and "experiences," no one can really truly know unless they have had both to compare. I know what I have had during my life and I do the very best that I can to relate it to what I suspect others have had based upon what they say and how they act about it.

I happen to disagree with John's view IF "that" were to be "the" one, and only one, way for people to relate to God ... thus if he is going to heaven via his way, I say welcome to it, and if where I am going is a hell as the opposite of his heaven (+/-) then I say fine, bring it on the sooner the better !

I do not see him "allowing" my view ... I fully allow his view ... provided it does NOT restrict my view ... mine is (+=-) and his is (+/-) as I see and understand it all ... I can allow (+=-)=(+/-) because I believe in (=), I see him believing in (+) at the expense of (-) ...

I stand by all of my words and intentions as being for the greater good of all of creation ... it is a 3 part Trinity to me that has the Spirit of God as the (=) right in the very center of every truth ...


If you Clarke can be more specific in what you were saying in the above comment, I would be interested in reading it. What you have said already, I am not sure I understand, thus I cannot say if I agree or not, but if I were to guess, I would say probably not. (as far as if I am being criticised in it) :-)

Jerry,
I was giving a "universal" daily practice found in all religions and teachings, including Krishnamurti.

For example,Ouspensky writes:

On one occasion, in connection with the description of exercises in concentration and
bringing the attention from one part of the body to another, G. asked:
"When you pronounce the word 'I' aloud, have you noticed where this word sounds in you?"
We did not at once understand what he meant. But we very soon began to notice that when pronouncing the word 'I' some of us definitely felt as if this word sounded in the head, others felt it in the chest, and others over the head--outside the body.
I must mention here that personally I was entirely unable to evoke this sensation in
myself and that I have to rely on others.
G. listened to all these remarks and said that there was an exercise connected with this
which, according to him, had been preserved up to our time in the monasteries of Mount
Athos.
A monk kneels or stands in a certain position and, lifting his arms, which are bent at the
elbows, he says--Ego aloud and drawn out while listening at the same time where the word "Ego" sounds.
The purpose of this exercise is to feel "I" every moment a man thinks of himself and to
bring "I" from one center to another.

( In Search of the Miraculous, p. 304)

Clarke,

I'm a bit late getting back to you and your most penetrating comment about the nature of broad "existential 'change" and then "individual change". So here -- Thanks for the observation and the trigger for inquiry.

In recent days I've been backtracking into Physics. My last exposures to theoretical physics -- in university -- was back in the fifties, and while I've been trying to get a perspective on the importance of 'MIND CHANGING' for me I have found that there really has been great change in Physics -- not only in 'particle physics knowledge' but also in the derivate philosophy (that I see, perhaps wrongly) emerging from the deep insights relating to the results of developed and developing knowledge of our universe (Astrophysics) and its composition, and the 'look sees' for an ever more profound and thoroughgoing attempt to weave the disparate pieces together, into a coherent and consistent theory of Universe Evolution. I have gained much by being updated. What I have learbed and now 'thrown out' of my prior science knowledge base HAS altered my views about thinking about and 'feeling' about what the future holds in the sense of the probabilities of a unified WORLD SOCIETY and thus, eventual TRUE PEACE, a recognition of the need for significant inter-relations among ALL, and/or a NEW RENAISSANCE (my next 'look see' starting with a look backwards in our human histories).

I'm not clear about what you see when you write that the individual changes but nothing (existential?) changes. Perhaps if you have the TIME you could elaborate. I'd be appreciative, as would -- I strongly suspect -- some of our colleagues here might, too.

Again. Thanks for the problem and the lead into posssible deliberations about the need for perspectives that are ever more concerned with our COLLECTIVE futures on our precious planet AND nation.

Dick

Dick,
Evolution for humanity is a long process, but for individuals and small groups it may be more rapid. Plato made this distinction as have all the great teachings.

The hallmark of our time is the identification with the " horizontal" notion of time . It has as well a "veritical" meaning and function . Time is seen today as "money." Every action is tied to the efficient making of money. "Time is money." It is one of the false gods of the day. The other false god is Scientism, the worship of Science and Technology. We allow these to order our life, plunder our resources, suck out our energy in the name of "The Information Age," an age that seeks not wisdom, or even knowledge, but "time-bound" information. "Information is power," "Greed is good," proclaims Das Man, the philosopher Martin Heidegger's mechanical "they-self."

Lacking awareness of the presence of the vertical nature of time, humanity cannot evolve, in fact it is devolving.

Since the last century, some physicists and now other scientists are indeed seeking to discover the nature of time in their work. They are rediscovering, as it were, that time is both vertical and horizontal through their creative research and experiments. But to evolve individuals must experience "time" in their being, in both its vertical and horizontal aspects.

To understand evolution on any scale, human or material we need to consider the unity of everything and the exchange of energy of everything; and, of course, the relativity of time. In this regard, you may be interested in a paper by a theoretical physicist, which you can find on the Web:
Basarab Nicolescu, GURDJIEFF AND SYSTEMIC THOUGHT .
www.gurdjieff.gr/SYSTEMIC%20THOUGHT.pdf

Clarke.

I find myself in profound agreement with virtually every point of your last comment. You use the term "evolution" too loosely to my way of comprehending its meaning. For their is no "inheritance factor", by default. As you note wisely, "devolution" is possible and even "likely" to occur, and strictly speaking, devolution, is an illusion, a qualitative nuance only. But in the reality we encounter, those changes are actually evolution too.

The superimposition, of a "progressive" bias, into ones observations of oneself, or ones kind, is a form of denial. The truth, as revealed by your statement that humanity is devolving, is actually a statement of personal bias. The truth is that "evil" is real. It is what is "progressing", which you are calling devolution. This ain't no party. Something wicked this way comes.

As for wickedness and evil, the only thing that comes, is what we jointly co-create ... God has supplied all of the potentials, we do the rest.

IMnsHO.

No matter who or how created, "evil" has a real existence, in the sense that it "begets" more disorder, anxiety, fear, etc., and so perpetuates itself, almost like an organism or disease within an organism. Societies have ever been ravaged by the chaos and violence it can unleash if that society becomes insensitive to the danger of taking it lightly. At this point in history, the ramifications of a true "meltdown" in any major society, are potentially catastrophic for the entire world of man. As I said, this ain't no party.

Clarke,

How do you 'fit' the notion of the seeeming human intention of the need for informed intellectuality as CONSCIOUSNESS GROWTH into the 'theory' of DEVOLUTION? Do we collectively 'crave' for an ever deeper UNDERSTANDING of 'ISNESS'?

Of course I accept the basic notion that we human beings may CHOOSE to become less consciousness (probably generated by an abhorrence of seeming unknowable COMPLEXITY and a seeming unwillingness to cultivate INTELLECTUALITY (collectively and individually)) but it seems to me that our innate mental and emotional equipment provided by EVOLUTION seems to me to be busily creating understandable complexity well before the efforts of us 'thinking and feeeling" CREATIONS (humans) appeared in this part of infinite space-time domain on this space-time rock .

It is strange to me, that in a very REAL sense -- as I see 'things and thoughts' -- that complexity arising by the many fold linkages of everything to everything generate the bases for human CREATIVITY and PROGRESS -- POTENTIALS!

The bottom line is what Gerry suggests I think : the rest is up to us. We are the engineers, scientists, and aesthetes (ALL of humanity) who are given the right (obligation(?)) to MAKE (to BUILD while UNDERSTANDING) our special, unique, finite WORLD-PLANET into either a HELL or a HEAVEN on this precious SPACE-ROCK of OURS. The UNIVERSE can be indifferent to our chosen fate, but should we be worried about that callousness? So knuckle headed? So unaware?

As we make mistakes and 'reach out' individually and collectively through TIME toward an IDEAL which is slowly being defined into existence from a (perhaps) flawed INITIAL CONDITION, are we slowly, via knowledge gathering, attempting to bring into EXISTENCE that special symbiotic posture (involving Persons and GOD) that is special for this SPECIAL PLANET of ours? What a design and Time Eating task! Interesting! Right? CONSCIOUSNESS GROWTH and CHANGES -- that MATTER (twin meaning here)!

Dick

Dick,
Think of the unity of everything and the exchange of energy of everything. The creative force manifests outward making worlds from galaxies to Nature according to the fundamental, universal laws of creating, destroying and reconciling. It makes an ever-expanding universe .

But there are actually two movements: one of energy moving downward, one returning to the source. The downward is involutionary, the other, evolutionary.

Zoraster introduced the the idea that what man thinks, feels and does can perfect Nature and humanity, prepare the world for a coming Saviour at the end of time. Man can receive the involutionary energy and - through his free well - transform part of it into evolutionary energy, that is returning "upward," returning toward the source. The later monotheisms present similar cosmologies and notions of humanity's place and role. In the Christian we have a hierarchy of worlds of increasingly finer vibration with their corresponding orders of angels created by God.

In this sense, when humanity does "evil" it fails to transform the involutionary forces it receives from the source. Civilizations that grow corrupt devolve because they receive the involutionary energies but do not "pay" for them as they were created to do. They become "worse than animals," existing like the dwellers in Plato's cave, oblivious to their real nature. They dwell in Flatland, the world of horizontal time. They are "time-bound" in the sense I wrote above. Barbarism is the result.

This was spoken of by the teacher when he said evil came from God: " People are so made that to a large extent they have to serve the mechanical ends of Nature. Then the gap between consciousness and mechanicalness becomes too great to be bridged, so a wise man had to be sent in order to show people how to bring the evil mechanicalness
more inside and work with it. It is through the negative, the affirmative appears, through the evil, the good appears."

In the Lord's Prayer there is a complete teaching on working with the involutionary and evolutionary movements. It is based on a very ancient teaching, common to all the world religions . We have many different words' as Force Plus, Force Minus, Neutralizing Force and Holy God, Holy the Firm, Holy the Immortal.

Clarke,

Many moons ago you asked me what TIME was and how I thought of 'it'. One inquiry led into another and here I am -- currently, for a while -- in the midst of somewhat careful expolorations of Dark Enerfgy, Dark Matter and what I have added for myself -- Dark Information.

Today's Astrophysicists are re-defining traditional Particle Physics and seem to be non-using theoretical concepts latent in the current interesting 'hyped up' String Theory (the presumed Theory of Everything -- TOE). I've lifted out of both the leading edge of a MAJOR problem as I see Physics. That of the role of INFORMATION as an a priori condition for the 'Big Bang' and subsequent creations of Matter and Anti-Matter. Another a priori condition has to do with THERMAL CONDITIONS at point zero TIME with reference to the Big Bang. There seems to be NO theoretical foundation for any CREATING FUNCTIONALITY to appear when whatever happened, happened. There is thus room for at least two 'concepts' to be explored as part of the pre-conditions that are necessary for take-off : infinite (or near-so) energy, and the potential for a TRANSFORMATION of energy into some plasma like materiality at high, high, high, high temperatures. The case for the MIRACULOUSNESS OF our eventual 'cooled down' UNIVERSE which we know about is still in the grab-bag of possibilities.

In my ancient studies of Thermodynamics (circa 1942) we had an old formula (if I remember it correctly) PV=nRT. It was referred to then as the IDEAL GAS LAW where P was the absolute Pressure of the gas, V is the Volume of the gas, n represented the number of moles of gas, R is the Universal Gas Constant, and T is the Absolute Temperature. The Astrophysicists speak -- with great certainty -- that the fermions (particles with mass) came to be as the UNIVERSE 'cooled' down. The first such atomic structure (with quarks and electrons somehow or other appearing WITHIN the emergent set of atomic structures eventually to appear -- HYDROGEN -- started the creation Project as the Universe expanded and thus 'cooled'. Thus the explanation of the 'light (low weight)' atomic particles.

The next billion years or so was the period when space-time became warped (whatever that suggests) and there was a devolution of the created then existent super-novae which -- with decreasing Temperatures in the Universe -- along with the expansion creating the Temperature lowering, set in motion the creation of the heavier atomic structures (atomic numbers greater than that of the IRON element. NEAT, NEAT, NEAT. Thus into the more advanced phases of becomingness and automaticity of the processes it seems.

Mystery SLOWLY becoming acceptable explanation? Now the real questions of great importance for human beings is becoming exposed! How is operational atomic COMPLEXITY built into human cells, DNA, Organs, sensory equipment in animals (sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensing, THINKING?) Off to the races as we MOVE FORWARD ever changing as Temperatures decrease and our Universe expands.

Back to the question you asked me months ago : How do I conceptualize the notion of TIME? Given the scientific LOGIC of an expanding Universe and a falling Temperature, we have a model something like X*Y=constant. Hyperbola like. Think now of Einstein's Space-Time as a way to make the product Space*Time = say a length. (A man by the name of Percy Bridgman (Harvard Professor in thirties, etc) won the Nobel Prize for his work on Dimensional Analysis. That got me through some rough spots when I was young.) Think the same way. Constant = SPACE*TIME.

Thus as SPACE EXPANDS, TIME must decrease to hold the constancy of the relationship. Contrariwise -- in a CONTRACTING UNIVERSE, as SPACE decreases, then TIME increases. This suggests to ME that with our UNIVERSE seemingly ever-expanding, we human beings MAY be moving toward a point of a MIND-FUNCTIONING REALITY where TIME ceases to be (that is TIME =0). And just perhaps we come then to 'KNOW IT ALL'. ALL MYSTERY disolves. The puzzle is then no puzzle at all.

But then there are all those pesky 'other' problems perhaps : (1) Anti-particles, Supersymmetry (and those weird Super-partners that have no mass but are presumed to 'exist'), Bosons, thoughts, dark matter, dark energy and DARK INFORMATION. THERE SEEMS ALWAYS TO BE CHANGE and NEW INSIGHTS TO BE HAD as we move toward our COLLECTIVE DESTINIES -- UNIVERSALITIES.

Dick

Dick,
For the Greeks like Plato who were schooled in the traditional knowledge of East and West, "philosophy" was a way of life . There was a disciplined process of transformation involving self-knowledge and self examination. There were meditative practices. There was work with the emotions. Various physical exercises and ritual practices. And a development of analytical and reasoning power. Ideas were catalysts and guides, indicators of the dimensions and lines to be developed in the practice of living the philosophical life.

Nous (intellectus) was not part of any center of the psyche. It was an independent force from the vegetative, animal, and intellectual powers of the psyche as part of human nature and the thumos, epithumos, and logistikon of the psyche as part of the individual character.

The fact we take intellect and head as meaning the same thing is a sign of our times - of modern philosophy where ideas have become mere concepts -- rational tools in expanding control of a world to be mastered by the head.

Understanding and transformation of one's whole being is the aim of true seekers of knowledge . Learning is an authentic act of becoming more than we were before our encounter with what we have learned. It is an encounter with the unknown.It affirms there is an ontological connection between ourselves, as finite beings, and the universe, which is infinite. Ontological derives from the Greek word 'on' meaning being. The sequence ont- is the Greek version of the Latin ent-. Both are forms of the verb "to be" in these languages. From the Latin ent- we have in English the word "entity," which means "something that is/exists."

A scientist, applying the scientific method, may study the same universal laws as the seeker of the knowledge of understanding and being and how they work in nature,yet remain quite undeveloped and "mechanical" as a human being. He is the like the ghost-like humans in Plato's cave who have no real "being." The scientist is unaware of how the varied energies he observes (only partially, according the limitations of the capacity to measure and identify them) in nature are also received in himself.These energies emanate from their source. The work of seekers is discriminate among them, to separate in himself the coarse from the fine through disciplined work. Humans have the possibility of receiving the involutionary current and transforming part of it for evolutionary purpose. This is like the alchemists making gold from lead.

Dick,
The physicists do not understand how to approach "Time" because they have limited knowledge of how to observe matter.

P. D. Ouspensky wrote, in 'In Search of the Miraculous,' "Eternity is the infinite existence of every moment of time. ... Eternity has one dimension more than time. ... If the space of time is four-dimensional, then the space of eternity is five-dimensional. (and) The sixth dimension is the line of the actualization of all possibilities."

'Actualization' could be the result of consciousness, as an 'experiencer.' This term comes from the physics experiment (and conundrum) of 'Schroedinger's Cat', which indicates that nothing actually 'happens' (i.e.: the electrical charges don't polarize and meld with each other into matter,) until and unless it is observed. Perhaps this is why some philosophies since antiquity suggest that our purpose is ultimately to 'witness', observe, 'be God's senses', so that this Universal , the Creator, will be maintained, and even co-created in each instant, by Awareness .Maybe every time we remember that we've noticed the 'stuff' of our observations, verifying "I Am", it is a part of SpaceTime which literally becomes 'Real.' This is the conscious work with the involutionary energies discussed above, making possible the transformation of part of them to evolutionary ones.

Perhaps the many contradictory theories by physicists seeking to form a theory of everything (Einstein, Quantum, String Theory etc) are explainable because they are based on partial observations of matter. They can observe directly perhaps 4% of matter. They infer the rest, making up names like "Dark Matter," " Dark Energy" etc for what they can't. They do not perceive that changes in "matter" work according to three forces:

the first, the 'Affirming-force' or the 'Pushing-force' or simply the 'Force-plus';

the second, the 'Denying-force' or the 'Resisting-force' or simply the 'Force-minus';

and the third, the 'Reconciling-force' or the 'Equilibrating-force' or the 'Neutralizing-force.'

These are not separate forces occupying different areas of SpaceTime. The 'Holy-Affirming' is not just in the bright matter, the 'Holy-Denying' is not just in the dark matter, and the 'Holy-Reconciling' is not always just somewhere in between. All three forces together occupy everything and everywhere, they’re just ordered or not in different relationships. All three ways of micro-to-macro 'Being-ness' together, are the building blocks of All that Is, and Is Not. Picture an enfolding Universe, as an intrinsic whole of Forming within the Formable in 'communication' with Itself.

Seekers of truth have learned to discriminate among the operation of the three forces in themselves. We receive energy of many different vibrations emanating from the source - from galaxies, stars, planets , nature. Science today does not know that many of these finer energies exist any more than they understand different states of consciousness. They think in 'horizontal time' and exclude 'vertical time' and , of course, exclude the faculty of Nous, "intellectus," mentioned above.

Because of "intermittent" computer glitches (I attribute to Gather) I can only occasionally deal with these longer threads on a timely basis ... it has taken me almost two days to get even this far "Clarke M., Jul 30, 2008, 6:53pm EDT" to where I could read and comment past my previous comment.

But while I was waiting, I was reading the link provided by Clarke earlier on Gurdjieff which was very encouraging to me, IE:

""As astonishing as it might seem, Gurdjieff's thought anticipated the evolution of contemporary scientific ideas, not in a vague and poetic manner-but by a precise and rigorous method. ""

Of course there is the DIS-couraging part in that for "me," as all I can claim is the "vague and poetic" part of what those concepts were and are. But I am evermore thankful that I have at least that, it being preferable to me, versus the "mechanicalness" of even the knowledgeable scientists ... wisdom trumps knowledge any day, as far as I am concerned.

With wisdom, one can take advantage of all knowledge available and not abuse it via the unbalancing of it. Balance (=) is key and critical in all things (+/-)=(+=-).

This of course brings me to think of the two folks here, Clarke and Dick who have both in spades, vast knowledge that makes me envious, but also thankful for the wisdom they have to match which portends much well being for the future of our world considering that there are countless others out there like them, working for the betterment of all of humanity, who have those same balanced qualities.

Clarke, I know that you have mentioned Gurdjieff many times in the past and I have probably thought of him as "just another" philosopher (which there are too many for me to thoroughly study at my age) as one of many ... but in reading that link I found that his ideas, at least in the basic form (and that is what counts most to me) agree with my own which were only intuitively granted to me, especially the associations of "the three" ... ( I am looking forward to reading of his "law of sevens")

It did seem though, in what little that I read, that his view is quite objective oriented in that the subjectivity he speaks of is in the objective sense that disregards the "spirituality" that I attribute to the whole and the parts. To me it is the Spirit of God that is the actual informing "intelligence" of our universe and which gives it the order it has.


PS ... as to John, your last comment reply to mine about "evil" is right on, well said, I can buy into that, where I still will not buy into a "Being" of evil having a "name" such as Satan ... unless we accord a name such as "Christ" to his counterpart, with God being "equally" (=) related to both of them ... IE (+=-).

Jerry,

A research scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Rudy Schild , who has published hundreds of hard-science papers ( http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~rschild/ )
has noted that new discoveries with ground-based and space telescopes are leading to a less mechanistic view of the universe. He's concluded that black holes have properties that allow them to resonate with the entire universe, creating a kind of massive information system that relates to our existence on Earth. He speculates about the connection between Dark Energy, black holes and wormholes and phenomena such as telepathy, near death encounters (NDEs), ghosts, and astrology. He suggests that telepathy may be associated with higher brain frequencies and facilitated through Dark Energy. Schild also comments he couldn't rule out the validity of astrology based on new findings about Dark Energy-- the magnetic field or subspace of various planetary alignments could "assist or retard some kinds of information."

It is clear that Dr. Schild, as other scientists, infer what they call "Dark Energy," etc. are by observations of the way that matter - a small fraction of the whole - works. There are many competing theories . Einstein created his theories based on mathematics , and some aspects of his have been subsequently proven partially valid through experiment. The model of the quantum hologram as existing in a field of zero point (scalar) energy , which Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the astronaut (also an MIT Phd.) subscribes to, is an elegant one.

While some scientists are seeing correlations to levels of consciousness, they have no means to measure what consciousness is , much less to form a conception of "divine consciousness." They view the "brain" as "mind, " and do not include the the faculty of Nous (intellectus) . They study human phenomena from this view.

In tradition, a distinction has always been made between two faculties, or types of activity, of our reflective capacity: in Greek this distinction reads as nous versus dianoia or logos, in Latin as intellectus versus ratio, in German as Vernunft versus Verstand, and in current English as reason versus rationality. The first faculty (nous, intellectus, Vernunft, reason) was considered to be the higher, the second (dianoia, logos, ratio, Verstand, rationality) the lower one.

The aim of becoming "more human," of evolving , individually and as humanity , the body corporate, of serving the will of God is not the province of science today. To its credit, science knows it does not know anything, except that some of its discoveries work, but will be superseded by better experiments and hypotheses. The search for truth should be a practical matter. Scientists study the material world. Those who seek to understand the meaning and purpose of life can find ways to learn, although what they understand is "nothing," almost nothing and it requires disciplined, daily practice and work to increase their understanding. A sincere search , which involves struggle and sacrifice, is self-verifying. It is an endless search, because any new understanding must be replaced by further understanding. Ideas are only guides. One may have a manual on how to drive a car and never learn how to drive it.

Clarke, Jerry, et al,

Our friend Bert B. has just published an article relating to atheism and 'Pascal's Wager'. This string and his might well be joined into our on-going deliberations. Its title is "The Evolution of an Atheist' and you can 'tune in' at

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977410982

Dick

Clarke, I book marked Dr Schild, will look into him later. Dr Mitchell I am familiar with as the founder of IONS which I have followed for many years now.

I really appreciate the information you have supplied, it is very encouraging to me to know that there are some credible scientists aware of the values of the more subjective considerations.


Thanks Dick for the heads up on Bert's thread.

Jerry,
Dr. Mitchell , after he had his samadhi experience in space began to work on himself in a disciplined way. I haven't any impression that Dr. Schild has done so. He is perhaps simply theorizing from the head. He was a friend of the late John Mack at Harvard, however. Consciousness study has little funding in academic science. P.E.A.R at Princeton did good work for over 25 years. They have archived many good papers,studies and links on their website. Stephan A. Schwartz has several good books and studies. His Opening to the Infinite reviews many studies.

Jerry,

You wrote: " I do regret sometimes that John and I seem to take over threads ... but I usually justify that in that we are either at least somewhat within the subject area, or that the thread may be past it's prime anyway for most commenters, thus I see these interchanges as actually extending the life of threads ... just my view, and it is your thread to make those decisions as you might be doing here (?).
As for the differences in our "views" and "experiences," no one can really truly know unless they have had both to compare. I know what I have had during my life and I do the very best that I can to relate it to what I suspect others have had based upon what they say and how they act about it."

You don't sem to get the ghist of what I meant in replying to what I wrote: "Jerry
You and John have different approaches. You don't see when you are describing similar experiences. and there is truth in both.
I think both of you would have better spared others from debating about your views ad infinitum on this thread. Much of it is a going over your "perennial" views, not to speak of each others' intelligence. I repeat, you both have similar experience."

I'll have one more go at trying to make it clearer (and this applies to you, John , myself and others who choose to communicate our views on subjects who do not know one another personally )

In communications on this medium we may make constant shifts between the
relational aspects and content. Sometimes, when it appears
that a communication is dealing with content, it suddenly
can turn out to be something relational. E.g. when a thought
is misunderstood or identified with too much, attacked as a
position, then things turn from content to relational. One
feels rejected, misunderstood, things like that, and starts
to pick on the other, not on the content but on the person.
Before you know it things are in opposition and conflict.
Only differences are seen, not resemblances. When you see
the resemblances insurmountable opposition is redefined into
a difficulty, and difficulties can be explored and solved.

There were differences in the views expressed recently but also "resemblances." There is always plenty of space for intelligent discussion of serious ideas and teachings. Different views of life can be shared for mutual benefit.

Take a great teaching like Buddhism, which like Christianity and other religions, has very different schools of thought and practice. Even Zen Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism ("mindfulness of the Buddha" - nembutsu) are not incompatible. The great chan/zen thinker Hakuin recommended making the nembutsu a koan, as in, 'Who is saying the name [of Buddha]?'

Clarke, thanks for the additional clarification of your meanings ... you are so correct ! If we could just stay on the facts and truth keeping the "personal" (ego) out of it all, it would all be so much better ...

Hi, Panther.
Evil.
Evil is like the bitter herb that helps the digestion. In the case of evil, the digestion it aids is the digestion of spiritual gifts and teachings.
We receive a dose of evil each day from Creative Love Source - a dose of medicine. Human beings can increase evil many fold by fearing it, and creating curses and vengeance dramas and warmongerings..........
Humans can also reduce the bloated human-created fields of evil by refusing to fear it - By, instead, relating to it with divine love. When worked with in that way, evil can be transformed back to original Love / healing power.

Carolion,
Yes, I think that is what the teacher was saying.

Clarke, I don't think so! There is no "mechanicalness" about the tough-love relationship between God the Bitter Herb and God the Human Digestion. It's a spiralling awakening dance, and full of amazing passion and exploration of all aspects of Love.

Mechanicalness - nada.

UNLESS you interpret the teacher's words to indicate the "mechanicalness" of karmic law / the harmonious laws of planetary-galactic rotations......
Because of course the various material & spiritual organs of our different forms of digestion are touchpoints of planets and universes. So in that sense, "mechanicalness" could work.

Ah, to spiral or not to spiral.....

The line between good and evil is drawn not between countries, but rather within the hearts of all men.

(I believe I read that in the Jim Wallis book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get it - highly recommended, incidentally.)

I found a quite a difference between the book and its author. Wallis' agenda includes politics, and the politics of religion, as well as the politics of politicians...So there's self-righteousness (and who doesn't feel righteous anger in these times?) but also a sense of people being used - attracted by religious attatchments, to serve Jim's ambition. Too harsh? Time will tell.

Carolion,
It is our mechanicalness that we need to understand. The teacher's thought might be summed up: The machine plus attention equals energy. Energy minus attention equals the machine. We have the possibility of learning the affirmative from the negative "unmechanically" when we have attention

"Evil" , the passive or negative, more intelligent than most "good intentions." To be as harmless as a dove one needs to be as smart as the serpent. "The devil is necessary."

When we lack inner attention, we are controlled by outside forces: our thoughts, feelings, sensations are merely reactions. We are like machines with no real awareness, no consciousness of a self, when we do not create a space in our being to observe "me," this cacophony and multiplicity of reactions I say "I" too.

I have the possibilty of being present, at the same time, to two levels of energy within, of being in between them, if only for moments. These moments have the taste of "Real I." Gurdjieff said , "Behind Real I lies God."

This is alchemical work which can lead to transformation of my being, and active participation in the evolution of life and humanity. If I serve only the general involutionary current of life, unconsciously, I live mechanically.

Healers may work with the finer energy: some do so unconsciously, some less so. I have known some,like Barbara Brennan. She channels, too. Not especially good stuff.
Some priests can develop great souls yet remain very undeveloped in other ways. There is a danger they may become the slaves of forces in themselves they do not understand and turn into "Grand Inquisitors."

The world religions must call all human beings but the priests who know their meaning usually reserve the inner teaching and the keys to it for the few. The reasons for doing this may be for right or wrong reasons. Knowledge is power. It should not be in the hands of those who aren't prepared to use it wisely.

There are many partial teachings, few complete ones. Few priests today know the inner teachings of their religions or the meaning of their rituals and practices. Few mystics or channelers have any real understanding. They may have visions and experience higher states but have no practical understanding . They remain undeveloped as human beings. They may serve God and heal others, Bless them for that good work and service.

A practical teaching like Gurdjieff's is for those who wish to develop the whole human being. It is like the inner teachings of the world religions and other complete teachings. It teaches individuals how to prepare in practical ways to receive sacred knowledge and energy gradually and consciously so that it changes their being. Simply experiencing higher states is not the aim. The aim is not "personal growth" or "enlightenment" in the fool's gold "New Age" sense .

We can't "change" humanity, prevent war or the destruction of the planet yet we can change ourselves. That helps others evolve. Those who work for human rights, justice, conflict resolution ,the environment, and create prayer groups and communities may do valuable work. Among them how many work on themeselves or are ready to or wish to work on themselves ? It is a question of scale.

In a war, would you prefer to have a few who know how fight or many who are willing but haven't experience? The real war within each human being cannot be fought by good intentions.

Evil is more intelligent than most good intentions. To be as harmless as a dove one needs to be as smart as the serpent. "The devil is necessary."