On science and religion .......

"Shall the lion lie down with the lamb? And make love even? The Garden of Eden." --Gary Snyder; Earth House Hold


In one of the threads discussing "science" versus "religion," I mentioned the works of Viktor Frankl. He was a survivor of the Nazi death camps, who became one of the preeminent psychotherapists of the 20th century. He wrote 31 books on philosophy, psychotherapy, and neurology. The two that I think are best known in the United States are "Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy," and "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning."

Frankl held very different views than his Viennese colleagues. When we think of Freud, we think of the will to pleasure; with Adler, we think of the will to power. Frankl, in my opinion, is more in the manner of Erich Fromm, and I think his works are of value to our society today.

Frankl believes that in the best circumstances, human beings have a drive that he calls a will to meaning. In our culture, that tends to be suppressed. It often comes through in times of severe distress. It is not at all in conflict with science; in fact, it goes hand-in-hand quite well.

However, when we think of the horrors of the Nazis, it's important to keep in mind that it was a culture based on a sick interpretation of science. The horrible abuses of human rights often involved the scientific "experiments" that occured in the death camps. The result wasn't that Frankl thought the Nazis may an error in the scientific method. Rather, he had to embrace the will to find meaning in order to survive. It wasn't because of the death camps he found that meaning; it was despite them.

I think that his theories are often viewed as related to R. Eucken's "noology." While I would not expect everyone to embrace these concepts, they offer certain advantages to discussions on a forum like DU. It does away with the need to see science and religion as polar opposites. Sometimes, mixing different things .... like hydrogen and oxygen .... works out to everyone's advantage.

is that I can think about these things on my very own, even if they are of no interest or concern to others!

You know I mean that with every fiber of my being.
---
Seriously, I think the Nazi's runaway self-importance that spiraled out of control and was their undoing is clearly seen today in our own
power monopoly.

Watching the smirks and winks and abject remorseless duplicity has the same ring to it. It looks and smells the same. I hope the world can find a way to restore sanity, because the Nazi's almost prevailed.

may be the torture that leads to a higher ground for many.

Uphill is harder than downhill. Thank you for going uphill. :)

(grin)

... while I think of what (always?) "floats" to the top. Perhaps in that is why I often tend to prowl around on Page Two of a DU forum. :evilgrin:

Frankl's book (MSFM) was a key in my fuller comprehension (and, finally, practice!) of that which I'd been told in many ways and may have even suspected. The little (hopefully shrinking) authoritarian in me still looks for an 'excuse' in print. With Frankl, I found it.

Well stated. Thanks

n.t.

Science has a pretty limited domain compared to religion and philosophy. Science can really only answer the how questions. Spirituality, religion, and philosophy take it from there.

Religion and philosophy provide the commentary.

:D

Science tries to describe "how" something happens.

Religion tries to answer "why" things happen.

Fundimentalists big mistake is trying to use religion to answer the "how" questions. It's like using a pair of scissors to cut your grass. Not only does your lawn end up looking like shit, but when you need to, say, cut some fabric, your scissors are ruined by misuse.

Thought I was going to hate it, but I like it. It sings.

I love it, I love it, I love it.

It's ironic that fundamentalists do this. Having faith precludes tying to use that faith to answer "how" questions. Does it really matter from the perspective of one's faith how God does things. If one beleives in God one beleives in God regardless.

This point was made to me in a documentary I was watching about the life of Jesus. In it one of the preist/scholar commentators (I can't remember the name), stated that even if they found the grave of Jesus, even if it were proved that they had found his remains, he would still continue to beleive.

Faith, practiced in that way, is very powerful. It allows for the acceptence of all things because that faith exists inside the individual. What I see from many who profess to be faithful (and not just fundamentalists) is the opposite of this. Many need to have their faith validated and are fearful of anything that may seem to invalidate it.

Your last sentence ("Many need to havbe their faith validated and are fearful of anything that may seem to invalidate it.") is a great example for illustrating how science applies to religion: that which is rigid tends to shatter under pressure.

Faith is a great thing. I admire people of faith. Yet people have the ability to transcend their daily lives of faith (or no faith) and to search and find answers to those ultimate questions on the meaning of life. Those who are focused on if Jesus is buried in a grave or if he were physically lifted into the heavens miss the key point: he left guidelines to a path to enlightenment.

Does it really matter from the perspective of one's faith how God does things. If one beleives in God one beleives in God regardless.

The problem with fundies, of course, is that they not only believe in God, they "believe in the Bible." In other words, unlike the majority of Christians, they believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. That means that they believe that, when it comes to the way the world came to be, they have the "how" spelled out for them in Genesis, and acceptance of any opposing scientific explanation of "how" is thus not only wrong but a rejection of God.

...then the whole entire religion falls to pieces. And in a way, if your faith is that rigid, then yeah, it does.

If it is not the literal written word of their god, then they have nothing upon which to base their faith. Which brings us to how I went from being a devout Christian to a practicing Wiccan. But that's a story for another time....

and I couldn't understand why they were making such a big deal out of the KJV of the Bible and making sure the sunday school materials and everything came only from it. I was perplexed and asked DH. I found out they believed that the KJV version is the only accurate translation. So not only do you have to believe the Bible completely literally, at that church, you can only read the KJV. Which, btw, is hardly the most accurate translation. I don't there were many thee's and thou's spoken in Israel in Jesus's day. Just by virtue of it being a translation, and especially the first major one, there WILL be flaws. And that's not even touching the issues of literal vs. figurative interpretation.

Thank you for making those very important points. It is very difficult to translate, for example, Onondaga to English, and not lose a significant part of the message. Add to that the fact that words "evolve" in their own fascinating manner, and the meaning of something said in 1500 can be very different from the same words in 2004. Add another 1500 years, and things from the time of Jesus are easily misunderstood. The authors of the Jewish books that are from the "pre-Paul" era are intended to be interpreted in a very different manner than those we associate with Paul.

I admit to skimming some of the thread instead of reading everything in depth. We have a mess today in the house. A pipe burst and it's been chaotic so I've been distracted. You mentioned somewhere that you were working on or publishing another book. Do you have one in print now? I'm always looking for new reading material.

is about the cultural contributions of the Irish immigrant stone-cutters in rural upstate New York in the mid-1800s. It is of limited appeal. (Luckily, my father was one of 14, so even though it is a local history book, it has done fine!)

The book that I'm working on now is an interpretation of Native American history & culture, based upon working with an Onondaga "Wisdom Keeper" (or elderly chief) for decades.

I play the traditional instrument the dulcimer, and since it is an unusual instrument and I often perform in interactive lecture environments, I have fielded many questions about it over the years. The dulcimer is mentioned in the KJ Bible, and I cite that as part of the instrument's history. At some point I learned that the word dulcimer in the KJ Bible was a mistake, and that the Bible was not talking about a dulcimer but about a type of bag pipe. Still the mention in the Bible is interesting, because it tells us the word was in use in the British Isles at the time the KJ version was written, and we know from other sources that the word was being used then to describe the same object that it describes in modern times.

So here we have one word in one version of the Bible that is in fact wrong. Back 30 years ago I never encountered any controversy from audience members when I said that. Starting about ten years ago I noticed the occasional person becoming agitated over this, and it increased as time went on. Pretty soon I noticed that I was inwardly flinching a little when I got to this part of the program.

Now, another thing I have noticed in regards to this is that many people have difficulty sorting out the object from the word used to describe the object in their imagination. I would say that the same basic instrument has a different name in another language, for example santur in Persian, Tsimbali in Ukrainian, etc., and then describe the history of the word dulcimer as distinct from the history of the object that we call dulcimer in English. This has led to many absurd exchanges - "yes but IS it a dulcimer?" people will ask, to which I answer that it IS this object in front of us, and we use the word dulcimer in English to describe this object we are looking at. Seems clear to me, but as often as not people wander off scratching their heads, or respond to me as though I had willfully avoided their question.

How can people say they believe the literal word of the Bible to be true, when they don't understand what a word is, don't understand what "true" means, and don't understand what the Bible is?

There has not been any culture that placed less value on words than our own. Words have power. This society has allowed much of that power to be lost, and there is a good deal of confusion as a result. To compare this confusion to the Tower of Babel seems too obvious, perhaps, but yet when we examine the true meaning that is intended by the words used in the story, the fit is exact.

My basic problem with fundamentalism, that explains all my other issues with it, is that they make their faith so narrow and don't even realize it. They honestly FEAR, really FEAR, anything that challenges their beliefs. I am a believer and my belief goes beyond what can be proven and my belief cannot be disproven. It exists, period, as far as I am concerned. My beliefs aren't threatened by what anyone else does, says, or believes. That allows me to look deeper into things and to explore scientific reasoning without posing a threat to my belief system.

But you can't put God in a box. If you believe, you can't limit Him. If you fear that new information will cause your entire belief system to collapse, that's not much of a faith. Fundies adhere to such a rigid system that they don't realize that system places limits on their Almighty.

It's no small coincidence that the God of a John Ashcroft is amazingly like a cosmic John Ashcroft, with all the petty attributes of the flesh & blood John Ashcroft.

the classic observation by old Fred Nietzsche that he who knows why masters he who knows how. Of course, he was not much of a fan of the church of his day. (grin)

...and, likewise, the big mistake of some of the more arrogant members of the science realm is trying to use science to answer the "why" questions, like claiming that Darwinian evolution "proves" that "there is no divine intelligence or design."

One need only look to the opposite view of the Divine, which is that the universe simply "just happened," which means that life has no ultimate meaning ..... which is about the most meaningless, shallow interpretation of reality possible. It says far more about the person who holds that view than about science.

Why can't people give their own lives meaning?

--IMM

and that is an advantage to that which we are discussing here: it places the ability to determine meaning with the individual. It does not require a belief in a personal "God," or any religious system at all. Rather, it can be seen in terms of individual meaning and responsibility. What does your life mean? No one else can answer that for you .... and those few who actually can, won't. (Likewise, those who do, can't.)

Principles are the way we live, above and beyond the emotions we feel in day-to-day life. The majority of atheists share the same basic set of principles as religious folks and spiritual folks. When we focus on that which we have in common, we find a greater strength; more, when we focus upon those principles as a political and social confederation, the democratic party will benefit.

--IMM

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

"Since the Japanese government only officially admitted conducting biological warfare research during World War II within the last few months, the majority of information regarding Japan’s biowarfare research has been divulged by former scientists and security personnel working at the research facilities as well as surviving test subjects. As you will see below, the “research” conducted by Japan’s Unit 731 represents the most graphic example of biowarfare to date and shows how genuine the threat of bioterrorism is."


more...
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0AUhYv34Q4sJ:dpalm.uth.tmc.edu/faculty/bios/norris/BT2002_files/Japan.htm+wwII+japan+unit+731+medical+experiments+%2Bedu&hl=en&client=firefox-a

power has always been as rutheless as there weapons allowed them to be...

This is an interesting framing of this issue. It is a bit unnerving to consider that people need abuse to be pushed toward the seeking of meaning. To a great degree, that may be true. Sort of similar to atheists that "find" God after a near-death experience.

Perhaps the ease of modern life pushes us away from seeking meaning?

But calling a seminal work about it: "Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy" has me scratching my head. Seems to me we're Logodrunk. If it were called 'Logostherapy' I could dig it.

If that was a typo, I bite my tongue. If it wasn't, I'm still scratching. Maybe I should breakdown and consult a dictionary?

When combined with other words, the nominative suffix -s of Greek words is dropped. Thus from logos (word, speach, meaning) and therapy (healing) -> logotherapy, cf. logopedy etc.

You are big help. Where have you been?

Thanks.

"...human beings have a drive that he calls a will to meaning. In our culture, that tends to be suppressed. It often comes through in times of severe distress. It is not at all in conflict with science; in fact, it goes hand-in-hand quite well."

This section I quoted in particular strikes me as opening up some interesting and productive areas for conversation. I am way out of my field here, and unfortunately not familiar with Frankl's work, but I think you are onto something powerful and would like to hear more of your thoughts.

I'm glad to see some responses to this. I'll try to answer you first, and hope that this makes sense. I'm going to paraphrase a few things that I've learned from other people, including from some books I read some time ago. I'm not claiming that this is in any sense an original thought; the only part that might be mine will be an error. The first error will be that I do not my "sources" at hand to properly cite. But what the heck, I'll make an off-the-cuff attempt.

A person from Canada asked me a question on one of the long and winding threads on science versus religion: wasn't the national "discussion" on "values" a smoke screen, to divert attention away from the many, many serious issues at hand in the 2004 election? And, if the answer is yes, then why has so much energy been put into the discussions on DU in the past few days?

Now, without even considering why this quarrel is occuring, let's look at the outcome: our nation is divided; our states are divided; our communities are divided; several people on DU have reported that they have stopped communicating with family members; and even on this forum, we see people divided and angry about an issue that should be uniting people.

What is the meaning of life? It is a valid question for each of us, no matter if we put our faith in religion or science .... both can offer meaningful or meaningless answers. I'm not interested in discussing the meaningless answers; they tend to create divisions between people, and are getting plenty of space on other threads.

Rather, I'm interested in a process that takes the best from both .... which is the will to meaning. What, for example, is human evolution? Surely, we can examine human evolution in terms of a person's being, which is both scientific and spiritual. For human evolution, understood properly, is not concerned with the mechanical evolution: we know that everything in the universe, from atom to solar system, either grows and develops, or withers and decays. Physical evolution can proceed no other way. The energy behind the cycle of organic life can be called by one of many names, that include science and religion.

But human evolution is different: an individual's evolution is the evolution of their consciousness. And they can not evolve unconsciously .... because, again, that is mechanical, or organic. The real evolution is when we begin to understand, and appreciate, our potential to find meaning ...... and, for just an obvious example, if the people on DU are not satisfied with the current state of affairs, we must do more to change them .... and in order to do more, we must become more.

Science alone will not save us. We already see hundreds of examples of the damage that is done when human beings' technological abilities are in advance of their spiritual level of being .... the Nazi holocaust is but one example; the arms race; the energy crisis; the lack of health care for thousands of Americans in the wealthiest country in the earth's history.

Likewise, to believe that faith alone will save us, if not now, in some afterlife, seems to reflect a serious misunderstanding of everything the great moral teachers in human history have taught. Right here and right now is the best time to take care of the here and now.

... because I am about to speak off-the-cuff myself. Years ago I read a book by an archaeologist, title and author forgotten now and 20 minutes of Google searches didn't find it, but I think I want to mention an insight I got from the book.

The author traipsed around the Middle East, using the Bible as he would any old manuscript and searching for evidence of things mentioned in it. One of the chapters talked about the Biblical story of the manna from heaven. He discovered a particular tree, still growing in the region where the Biblical story most likely occurred, that exuded a sap-like substance that was in fact edible and the name for this tree in the local dialect was very similar to the word "manna."

I am not an archaeologist, nor a Biblical scholar, and cannot speak to the veracity of this story, but it did make me think about the relationship between science and religion. In the story in the Bible, the Israelites have been wandering in the wilderness, and were delivered from starvation by manna from heaven - edible drops of food that they collected from the ground each morning. The Biblical description of this manna is very similar to the secretions of this particular tree that still grows today. Since this food came unexpectedly and just when it was needed, the Israelites saw it as a miracle and that God had delivered them.

Now, as the fundamentalists interpret the Biblical story, it is true, 100% literally true, because it is in the Bible. The rational person would say that it is a myth because it requires that we take it on faith in the absence of evidence.

Yet it seems that both the myth - the Biblical story - and the science - the actual investigation and analysis of evidence - are true, and there is no conflict between the two. Neither "proves" the other. Neither refutes the other.

The Biblical lesson - if we have faith we will be delivered - contains truth regardless of the details about manna. "God" did deliver them - no man consciously did. It was a miracle - unexpected and unexplained. It was a blessing - they were saved from starvation.

The scientific version - that there is a manna tree that does secrete an edible resin that can be collected in the morning - is also true.

However, the fundamentalist version - that the literal facts are true because they are in the Bible, and the anti-fundamentalist view - that it is false because of a lack of evidence - are both missing the truth.

Myths are not true as science. That doesn't make myths false. Science is not true as myths. That does not make science false. Yet neither alone is the full truth.

I don't know if I explained this well or not, but I see many of the arguments at DU to be true believer versus rationalist arguments, both of which may be missing part of the truth.



on edit - missing word added

and religion are at their best when the overlap. I'm working on another book; it's about one of the elders from the Onondaga nation that I had the opportunity to work with for about 20 years. What I'm going to attempt to do is to review the archaeological record, the written record from "pioneer" days," and the oral traditions of the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy.

When we examine the change in the family structure, which means extended family/clan/tribe, as those groups went from hunter/gatherers to agrarians, we find the differences in the religious structure. Just the most obvious example is in the hunter/gathering society, with relatively small groups of people, the religious life is led by a shaman who teaches based on his/her individual experience. Agrarian society, with larger more sedentary groups, has a priesthood, and a religious life led by those initiated by ritual (the ritual can & does lead to individual experience, but in a far different manner than for a shaman).

Those who exist in hunting & gathering societies have an entirely different form of symbolism in their religious life, than do those who plant and harvest. (Likewise, herding people's have their own set of symbols that do not always translate to the individual experiences of people 2000 later in a high-tech world.)

Yet tribal people, with a strong oral tradition, often have memories of what we call "the ancestor's ancestors," or the "ancient ones." And it is possible to connect specific teachings, or tribal memories, with a specific era or archaeological phase. More, we can examine the transitional phases, where cultures experienced profound changes, see the effect on people/communities, and perhaps find things we can apply to today in an effort to find meaning.

It never occurred to me that there would be a correlation between the cultural development of a society and the forms that their religions would take.

Do you think that we are in a transition phase now, similar to when cultures have become agrarian societies? It does seem that people are experiencing profound change and that the rise of fundamentalism is an attempt to make sense of these changes and cope with them. Talking to Bush voters, they keep referring to things going out of control, and say things such as "where will it end?" and "we are down the wrong path." That sounds to be a fear of change and a search for ways to fund meaning in the change. One person said to me last week "what does it mean for us as a people if our scientists can tamper with the basic building blocks of life - God's handiwork? Is this not dangerous? Should we not be cautious?" It then makes perfect sense for that person to reach for what they imagine to be the old, the tried and the true and have a desire to "get back to the fundamental principles."

answer this in two parts: in this one I'm going to ramble on and on about family patterns, means of production, and religion. And, as is so often the case, I'm not well-prepared .... so bear with me. I hope that this makes sense.

Lewis Henry Morgan was born in NYS in about 1818 (and died around 1881). Around the time he was studying to be an attorney, he joined a social club in NYC. I believe it was, in part, a literary club. His interest was the Iroquois Confederacy. (After the Revolutionary War, most of the Confederacy was driven out of the state; hence, Morgan would be most closely associated with the "western door," or Seneca Nation.) Morgan wrote a "constitution" for his social club based on the Iroquois' Great Law of Peace.

In time, he began to recognize the similarities between the Iroquois and the Greeks and Roman civilization. Now, although it wasn't stated, his connection is fascinating to me, because it shows he realized that the Iroquois had been living as a confederate state of tribes in NYS for a long time, something that those who were busy stealing Iroquois' homelands denied.

Morgan's works began to focus on the relationship between family patterns and political structure in various cultural phases. His classic book "Ancient Society" served as the foundation of Engel's later "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State." In his book Earth House Hold (quoted at the beginning of this thread), Gary Snyder wrote that Engels noted "the relationship between the rights of women, sexuality and the family, and attitudes towards property and power ..."

Neither Morgan or Engels connected the corresponding religious patterns that generally apply to these same distinct cultural phases.
Obviously, in human history, there are significant variations, simply because people lived in extremely different climates. But there are a few basic patterns you may find interesting:

Early hunters & gatherers: small bands of up to about 25 people; multi-generational, extended family; social stratification limited to age, sex, and hunting ability; religion based on hunting large game; group led by shaman; cultural artifacts relate to hunt (think of paintings in European caves). One can only speculate on matrilineal vs patrilineal family/clan patterns. Nomadic.

Later hunters & gatherers: larger extended family; river-basin parochial, indicating seasonal gatherings with clans for enlarging gene-pool; patriarchal society based upon hunting prowess; religion based on seasons & herd migrations and related group ceremonialism; we can think of the red ocher and bear cult religions above the equator.

Agriculture: women begin to be primary producer of food; men form the early "societies" that will produce priesthood (as opposed to shaman) when accumulated wealth creates more social stratification; "craftsmen" control trade; warrior societies produce political leaders distict from priesthood; battles & raids between the larger, more sedentary communities led to confederated tribal groups based upon system of clans. Religion begins to take on aspects of "life out of death" based on seeds being saved for replanting. Highly territorial.

Pastoral: nomadic, with a looser parochial grazing territory that includes "shared lands"; patrilineal descent; tendency for monogamy; religion becomes based on "good shepherd." Hence, from pastoral society, we have the "pastor" of the church.

Iron Age/Industrial Society: leads to larger towns and small cities; "modern society"; needs trade routes into tribal areas to access raw materials, including food to support larger population; priesthood becomes "craftsmen" who accumulate wealth and relationships with political leadership. Warfare becomes possible for the first time; it always is related to accessing resources of people outside the city/nation-state.

This is just a basic outline. Does it make sense?

Taking into account that we are in a very different cultural phase than we ever have been, it becomes likely that we will find many of the rituals and symbols of the "old" religions do not neatly apply to our current circumstances.

When we look at the shaman, it is religious enlightenment based primarily upon individual experience; a priesthood is based upon a group's ritual exerience. This creates an interesting set of circumstances for our society. In general, the constitutional protections are considered to be individualized; yet religious rights are often viewed in a group context by the courts. We may see the significance of these distinctions when the draft is brought back into play, and young men (and possibly women) want to consider CO status.

We also see a divide that runs deeply even on DU: between science and spirituality. Now, in simple terms of spirituality as the will towards meaning, let us examine one example: responsibility.

Consider, first in terms of science, a person's responsibility to {1} themselves; {2} their spouse/SO; {3} their children; {4} their extended family; {5} their community; {6} their country; and {7} the world. Then consider these in terms of individual spirituality; and then in terms of a group religion.

I suspect that a rational person will find that science alone is not able to answer these questions outside of some limited examples (a pediatrician, etc). But they are questions that we will need to answer them, both as individuals and as a society.

HOW God works..you don't have to choose between science and relgion..to do so is putting limits on God..which is a sin..

I believe in God..I am a Roman Catholic (extremely liberal, but hey our Church has a long history of heretics that later were proven correct)..and I believe in science, evolution, etc...

More than I can legitimately grapple with right now.

But consider this: I think it was Aleister Crowley, of all people, who said there were two kinds of magicians: those who desire knowledge, and those who desire power. And there comes a point in a magician's development that he has to choose.

The Nazis chose power, obviously, and one of the ways we know this is what areas of investigation they chose to work in: eugenics and "race science," plus military technologies. And they structured their "experiments" in race to confirm what they already believed. See also Lysenko and everybody else who lent a scientific gloss to Marxism under Stalin.

Increasingly, this is the kind of science we see coming to the fore: studies by industry-funded groups that "prove" that toxic sludge is good for you and that clear-cutting revitalizes forests and that the polar ice caps are evolving into a new, more responsive life form, but we aren't...

It occurs to me right now that the crux of the difference is, if you really want to *know* something, you actively embrace the possibility of being wrong-- you try to conduct experiments that will expose the flaws in your hypotheses. But if what you want is what Richard Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science," you carefully construct experiments that will only demonstrate the desired results.

Very important points!

With this i disagree.

I think the sickness was already there and science got interpreted accordingly, in order to justify their own sick actions.

What would you say were the symptoms of that sickness? What things made pre-Nazi Germany distinct from its European neighbors? Would it be safe to think this same societal sickness had been involved in WW1? And what was the specific sickness?

In other threads, I've noted that C. G. Jung had said in 1918 that "'the blond beast' is stirring in its sleep, and something will happen in Germany." (The Role of the Unconscious; C.W., vol. 10, par. 17) He was referring to the archetypal images that his patients were making reference to. "In the collective unconscious of the individual, history prepares itself; and when the archetypes are activated in a number of individuals and come to the surface, we are in the midst of history, as we are at present. The archetypal image which the moment requires gets into life, and everybody is seized by it. That is what we see today."

I'd want to distinguish between on the one hand the sickness of people in positions of power who either truely believed in Nazism or helped to enable it because it suited their goals of ever obtaining more wealth and power, and on the other hand the German population who were along for the ride as much as many Americans today are along for the ride in Bush's America. Their 'sin' if you can call it that, was to be intimidated by the Big Stick and to a lesser degree to be misguided by the Big Lie.
Imo the sickness of the real Nazis was simply that they were sociopaths and criminals.

I wouldn't call it a "social sickness" because i don't think that all of German society was 'infected' in the same way.

I think it is pretty well known that circumstances in post WW-1 Germany were such that it was open to some sort of power grab. Germany was in shambles economically because it had to pay for all damages it had caused during WW1, and the established leadership didn't appear to know very well what to do about it.

Also Germany was not alone in this sickness. It is rather striking that in a relatively short time-span some form of Despotism reared its head in several European nations, besides Germany most notably Italy (Mussolini) and Spain (Franco). Even in the UK there was a Fascist movement but it didn't take hold.

and important points to consider, as this country has become fertile ground for the same type of terrors. I do not think that it is going too far to compare the current situation in America with Germany in that era. I appreciate your additions to this thread, and hope you keep adding to the discussion.

It is also interesting that Jung interpreted what he saw, the WWII, as the end of the rule of the archetype of Hero (aka blond beast) by act of bloody self-destruction, archetype which besides youthfull and noble can be also very stupid and destructive.

I'd say he got that right, at least post WWII Europeans are not generally accused of being heroic ;). In parts of US consciousness that particular archetype seems to be still quite strong.

Perhaps these phases of prominence of certain archetypes in what Jung calls 'individualization process' do not apply only individuals but whole cultures too.

and H2O Man asked me to post it here.

The "god" question leads me to ask the following questions:

Do thoughts exist?

What is consciousness?

Here's an interesting opinion piece that I found that attempts to shed some light on the question of consciousness.



Now I'll take a little time to get up to speed on the thread. :)

related issues regarding the human brain and, for lack of better trms, "religion" and "spirituality."

Recently, there have been reports of a "God gene" being identified by scientists. It appears to be one of the important factors in allowing human beings to experience many of the thoughts and emotions associated with a sense of the divine.

Those who tend not to believe in "God" use this as evidence that there is no God outside of people's skulls, because some folks have a greater supply of the "God gene" than others.

Yet if we take the same basic theory, some people have a genetic make-up that renders them "color blind." Although this physical variance in their eyes and brain results in them seeing the world in a different manner than those who are not color-blind, it would not seems that a claim that colors do not exist outside our skulls seem like solid science.

Sight, like hearing, is simply the manner in which our brain translates energy that exists outside of our heads. The energy in a green plant is just as real if there is a person looking at it who is color blind and doesn't perceive "green," as if another sees green, or if noone sees it at all.

I would venture that green plants are divine. I think that it is also both a scientific fact and religious truth that our brain allows us to experience the divine nature of the world around us.

Is it divine?

BTW, I think you're on to something here. Spirituality is the key to solving our problem.

I used to work in an agency that dealt with domestic violence. My office was between those of the director of the local drug abuse services, and those of the alcohol abuse services. Of course, I'm dating myself here, because today everyone knows that drug & alcohol services should be one and the same.

Anyhow, the fellow who directed the drug abuse services was a little wary of me, because I had (and have) long hair. Yikes! One of "them." Anyhow, one day he saw I was wearing a necklace with a projectile point on it. He wanted to make a joke at my expense, because he thought I must be a "new age" type of person, and so he said, "Oh, I bet that arrowhead has a lot of 'power' in it, huh?" (This was at lunch; we all shared the same dining room.)

I explained that it did have a power he might appreciate. It was not an "arrowhead" at all; rather, it was a small spear point, from the Lamoka cultural phase, dating about 2200bc. As such, in the context of science, it was very powerful, indeed, and could communicate a great deal.

Long story short: we became good friends, and this fellow came to appreciate how people could connect to both the scientific and spiritual nature of a site with arrowheads and other "artifacts." When I would take groups of children and youth on archaeological digs, he would even join us.

Years later, I co-wrote the first "test case" for the Native American Burial Protection and repatriation Act. (Signed by, of all people, the first President Bush.) This consevative fellow would be one of the most outspoken supporters of our case along the way. Science and spirituality should not conflict.

Now, this example of the power of a single piece of flint, about 1 inch in length, is one of the best ways I can think of to answer your question. Does it make sense? I think the entire universe is alive and conscious, although not on the same level as humans are.

Living beings made from the ashes of dead stars. In a sense we are the Universe contemplating its own navel. So yes, I would also say inanimate objects are Divine. You comments evoked one of my favorite poems which is familiar to every Mexican high school student:

WHEN YOU LEARN TO FIND A SMILE

ENRIQUE GONZALEZ MARTINEZ
Mexican Diplomat and Poet
(1871-1952)


When you learn to find a smile
in the subtle drops that exhude
from porous rocks in the mist,
or from the sun, the birds, and the breeze;

When nothing to your eyes remains lifeless,
or amorphous, or colorless, or distant,
and you grasp life and the mysteries
of silence, shadows and death.

When you can cast your gaze at the different
paths of the cosmos, and your effort
becomes a potent microscope
that discovers invisible universes;

Only then in a blazing bonfire
of infinite and superhuman love,
like St. Francis of Assisi, will make brothers
of the tree, the jungle and the beast.

And you will feel in the immense multitude
of beings and things your own self;
and will become fear itself before the abyss
and will become pride itself upon the summit.

Your love will shake off the defiled pollen
that stains the very whiteness of the lily,
you will bless the sandy seashores
and cherish the flight of insects;

And you will kiss the briar thorns
And the silky petals of the dahlias…
And piously cast off your sandals
to keep from hurting the stones along your path.

http://palabravirtual.com/index.php?ir=ver_poema1.php&pid=378

CUANDO SEPAS HALLAR UNA SONRISA

Cuando sepas hallar una sonrisa
en la gota sutil que se rezuma
de las porosas piedras, en la bruma,
en el sol, en el ave y en la brisa;

cuando nada a tus ojos quede inerte,
ni informe, ni incoloro, ni lejano,
y penetres la vida y el arcano
del silencio, las sombras y la muerte;

cuando tiendas la vista a los diversos
rumbos del cosmos, y tu esfuerzo propio
sea como potente microscopio
que va hallando invisibles universos;

entonces en las flamas de la hoguera
de un amor infinito y sobrehumano,
como el santo de Asís, dirás hermano
al árbol, al celaje y a la fiera.

Sentirás en la inmensa muchedumbre
de seres y de cosas tu ser mismo;
serás todo pavor con el abismo
y serás todo orgullo con la cumbre.

Sacudirá tu amor el polvo infecto
que macula el blancor de la azucena,
bendecirás las márgenes de arena
y adorarás el vuelo del insecto;

y besarás el garfio del espino
y el sedeño ropaje de las dalias...
Y quitarás piadoso tus sandalias
por no herir a las piedras del camino.

ENRIQUE GONZALEZ MARTINEZ

I also think that - being an integral part of the whole - what we do affects this "universal consciousness." I think it has to do with our attitude toward life.

Your answer to my question regarding inanimate matter is a good start. I'm still wondering about the relationship between animate and inanimate matter...

what types of things you mean by "inanimate matter"?

Some people think of soil, rocks, water, etc as fitting that description. This reminds me of a paragraph in Snyder's Earth House Hold: "A Californian named Walter Y. Evans-Wentz, who sensed that the mountains on his family's vast grazing lands really did have spirits in them, went to Oxford to study the Celtic belief in fairies and then to Sikkim to study Vajrayana under a lama. His best-known book is The Tibetan Book of the Dead."

In another part of the book: "One of the most significant medieval heresies was the Brotherhood of the Free Spirit, of which Hieronymus Bosch was probably a member. The Brotherhood believed that God was immanent in everything, and that once one had experienced this God-presence in himself he became a Free Spirit; he was again living in the Garden of Eden."

I love Bosch's work. The Spanish Inquisitors loved his work too though...

would agree that the first law of life is water. The continued abuse of the supply of clean water is certainly against science and religion.

Is water spiritual? Sit quietly beside a creek for as many hours as you can. There is a phrase: Tey-yon-a-del-hough .... it means the spirit of the water sings. So for a couple thousand years or more, the Iroquois people in the northeast had that relationship to water.

In Ireland, everyone knows where the powers lie: in the small springs that gurgle up through the ground, usually near a boulder.

In religious writings, water is used to represent true life. Even when we think of Jesus talking to the lady at the well, he talks about living water.

Of course, being a Water Man, I recognize that I am somewhat less than objective. (smile)

is recognizing the reality of things existing before their accounting for scientifically. Science is constantly catching up, while arguing as though things only exist once they are explained.

Science recognizes the difference between a conscious, person who is awake and alert, and that same person when they are unconscious and asleep.

For sake of discussion, let's think in terms of a young mother. If she is awake, and her infant begins to cry, she responds. In fact, mothers will have physical reactions that they need not consciously consider in order to prepare to nurse the crying infant.

Take the same mother, and let her fall asleep. She will sleep through many loud noises, but let her baby begin to make small, crying noises, and that mother will wake up. The only exception would be if the mother had taken a narcotic.

How is this? It can only be the most obvious explanation: that people have more levels of "awareness" or "consciousness" than awake and asleep.

True spirituality resides in that same area of human consciousness as the part of the mother that watches over her child, even as she sleeps. Science does not seem to have an explanation that fully explains it.

Arthur Schnitzler, Vienna's famous poet an contemporary of Sigmund Freud, has been quoted as saying that there are really only three virtues: objectivity, courage, and sense of responsibility. It would be temptng to allot to each of these virtues one of the schools of psychotherapy that have emerged from Viennese soil." -- Frankl

"Courage" is the essense of Adlerian psychology. As Frankl reminds us, the Adlerian therapist's goal is to "help the patient overcome his inferiority feelings" which are what holds him back in life.

"Objectivity" is the description of the Freudian psychoanalysis. "What else could it have been," Frankl asks us, "that enabled Sigmund Freud, like Oedipus, to look into the eyes of the Sphinx -- the human psyche -- and draw out its riddle at risk of a most dreadful discovery?" Today, many in the psychiatric field do not appreciate the significance of the giant leaps that Freud took.

However, it is possible that this objectivity of Freud has become almost a cynicism today. Frankl warned that the view of the human being as a machine implied that al it took was an objective mechanic or technician to repair it. Today, there is an overemphasis on "fixing" broken machines by adding daily doses of fuels that alter the machine's performance.

"The sense of responsibility" is the description of Frankl's "existential analysis." His goal was to help people to respond to life "in action," meaning in the here and now. It is a means of having the individual be able to identify his responsibility -- to himself and to the situation -- in terms of his spiritual existence. "Here it is not the ego that becomes conscious of the id but rather the self that becomes conscious of itself."

It takes, however, objectivity and courage to follow through on one's sense of responsibilities!

Funny how often learning comes in three's.

I think Sheldrake has at least some case studies about this, often when baby cries for hunger even at different location and mother can't hear, the milk in hear breasts "surges up" - if that is the correct expression.

My father worked as Chief of the watch on an oil rig. He had a trailer next to the rig where he slept (on call and on-site 24x7 for two weeks at a time). He could sleep like a baby through almost deafening noise, but with the slightest change in either the rhythm, the pitch, or the volume he would be instantly awake and racing up the gangway to see what was wrong. He knew exactly how the rig should sound when it was drilling properly, and when it was not.

And then there were the bad ones.

One night he was working derrick (up high), and was knocked off the derrick by a drunk driller's fuck-up. He fell about 60 ft and landed flat on his back in the mud-pit. Relatively unscathed but a bit shook up. He wasn't sure he was still in this world when Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable showed up doing research for that movie they made about the oil business.

Thanks for sharing it.

for women who do not breast-feed; hence it is not a result of the physical response. I can say in all sincerity that it is the God-response, and part of the Divine nature. Our society has lost sight of the spiritual benefits accrued to society by mothers tending their children. Our economic system denies this option in thousands of human lives.

I associated it to a great extent with breastfeeding and cosleeping. But also, most of the women I know have a nursery and the distance seems to impair the connection for many. It makes sense, though.

Very nice read indeed, i am still catching up, but this post i had to reply to. In the years following Darwin, many counter examples were proposed of things found in nature "which could not possibly have evolved, but rather had to have existed in a completed form forever". Take for example the bee-dance or the eye. The debunking of these statements is in my opinion a triumph of the scientific process, and a justification for applying it.

The sentence that provokes this reply is the following:
"How is this? It can only be the most obvious explanation:"

This sets of several alarm bells in me. First of all the wording of the question. You ask "How is this?", but you answer it as if the question were: "Why is this?"

I'm going to try and make a couple of things explicit which I'm not sure I'm allowed to do, so please be critical of the following points. These are observations on my part, i may be wrong.

- I believe many scientists when confronted with several explanations will tend to choose the simplest one.
- What is obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else.
- You conclude that it "can only be" your explanation.
- In the last sentence of your post, you nuance: "science does not seem to have an explanation that fully explains it"

I would argue that you left a word out in the last sentence, and i would want to modify that sentence to: "Science does not YET seem to have an explanation that fully explains it."

What set of the alarm bells in me is that i get the feeling that you here take an issue that science can not explain fully, and present that fact as proof for some form of spirituality. I agree with you that it may be an indication, but i would not put it forward as a form of proof.

I might counter that the mother will be quite accustomed to most of the loud sounds you describe, but may have trained herself to respond actively to her child crying (Pavlov?). She will hear all sounds, but her brain rejects most input as noise.


I'm curious about the thoughts of DUers on the following:
- Could you comment on the role of education in the "battle" between science and religion/spirituality? It seems that most discussions are centered around what we want our children to take with them.
- I sometimes get the feeling that when you rigorously strip any true/false statements from religious documents, you end up with a set of moral values which almost anyone doing the stripping agrees with, or which represents ideological values for the society in which the document was created. Agreed?
- Why do you think religions tend to violently oppose each other, whereas there are no warring scientific communities?
- For me the difference between science and religion lies mostly in how in transfers to other people. If i get explained something to me, and i understand it, then i can use the same process, and explain it to someone else. But a spiritual experience to me is very personal, and although i can try to explain the feeling, i cannot transfer it to someone else and expect the same response. For me spirituality is personal, religion is a group process. I tend to see spirituality as a good thing, not opposing science, while religion leaves a somewhat bad taste in my mouth.

Ok, this has become a rather long rant, I'll go think about it on my own now :)

Valid questions. Very valid.

First, let me say that much of the conflict that we have seen on the various threads regarding "science" and "religion" have included those who advocate a sterile form of science taking a religious/spiritual issue that is so weak that no one could seriously say it represents religious thinking, and stomping it .... as if this were proof that religion is a chain that can be broken with pressure to its weakest link.

And so I use as an example the curious case of the woman and infant .... we are close to the Christmas holiday (grin) .... and I say that it is a spiritual issue. Now, as a reflex, those who are scientific view accept it as such, and -- as you do -- try to fit it into two possibilities that it simply doesn't quite fit.

Now, were the WaterMan taking the scientific point of view, certain other points would be highlighted: the fact that this represents another level of consciousness is indeed science! Thus, the "how" -- which is what I focused attention to -- is science. In the context of Frankl's teachings, it is science .... we need to remember that he wrote primarily on psychotherapy and neurology .... it is merely a point that indicates that science has spiritual overtones.

Now that is kind of funny, because today on the morning news there is coverage about the "debate" over the birth of Jesus. Those who believe that the story in the bible is supposed to be literal miss the entire point (with one exception) that is intended.

But back to your point -- I'm not anti-science, not at all. But I think that it is fair to ask questions that are not easily or obviously answered. I hope you continue with this thread!

Science is only a tool. Like all tools it requires skill and practice to use properly.

Often people who are not scientists, and who are not properly trained in it, embrace it as if it were a religion. This zealotry is often counterproductive and devalues science in the same way that religious zealotry devalues faith. Sometimes people who profess to be Christian do not know what it means to be a Christian and their actions are not consistent with the faith.

Science is a conservative philosophy. It attempts to reconcile new observations with existing knowledge. Each scientific discovery becomes the foundation for new theories and inquiries. When a false discovery gets incorporated into science it undermines all subsequent work based on that discovery. The damage can be significant. Such was the case with the Piltdown Man Hoax of 1912. It took decades and new finds of ancient hominids before Piltdown man became an anomaly that didn't fit in, a creature without a place in the human family tree. Finally, in 1953, the truth came out and Piltdown was rejected.

True scientist do not assert that something does not exist. If they have already explored a subject to some degree and found no evidence of existence, they might say something like "it's possible but highly unlikely". This answer may sound flippant or condescending but it is not. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this is the strongest existence rejection statement that scientists can make.

Science always seems to be 'catching up' because the purpose of science is not to make new discoveries, but to validate them; to separate true cause and effect relationships from mere coincidences.

of a science "psychology" from time to time. But you are, of course, right on target. Perhaps the point I attempted was poorly made.

I'm reminded of the head of the U.S. Patent Office of 100+yrs ago, who reccommended the office be closed because all that could be invented, had been.

I like this quote:

"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word 'understanding'."

-Werner Heisenberg

And are seen as the same thing. This is a remnant perhaps of Dialectic Materialism and its impact on language.

Technologists deal with the practical application of scientific knowledge. Therefore their interests lie within well trodden inner paths; far away from the dark frontiers of science where doubt and uncertainty still reign. Because of this narrower focus on practicalities, technologists are more likely to exhibit what you call the science "psychology". A patent clerk, for example, I would consider a technologists rather than a scientist. It is worth noting that scientific discoveries cannot be patented; only the practical applications thereof.

I do like your quote from Heisenberg; truly a great scientist. That quote is an accurate reflection of the philosophy of science.

Yet the pursuit of understanding through a strictly scientific discipline can take its toll on the fullness of understanding, if not the psyche.

Are you familiar with William Tiller's work at Stanford on the influence of human intention on matter? Stunning work.

I have heard of some quantum experiments that defy causality, at least at the quantum level. Very trippy stuff. Do you have some links to Tiller's work?

I do agree that understanding lies outside of science. You can not achieve understanding through science, you can only validate it. Ultimately science is just another tool, not the only tool.

It is interesting that this thread started as a discussion of Science and Religion as if they were opposites. I do not think they are. Science and Art are better opposites. My favorite definition of the two is:

Art is passion pursued with discipline.
Science is discipline pursued with passion.

But there are certainly opposing qualities.

Tiller's work includes clinical data showing the influence of ph at a distance by the human mind. His work has gone far beyond this, but this is an elegant example.
---
Towards General Experimentation

and Discovery in

"Conditioned" Laboratory Spaces,


Part III: A Theoretical Interpretation of Non-local Information Entanglement


W. A. Tiller and W.E. Dibble, Jr.
Abstract

XXOur conventional reference frame (RF) for viewing nature, spacetime, is unable to account for the experimental data provided in Parts I and II so a new RF is utilized. This biconformal base-space (BFBS) RF, consists of two, four-dimensional, reciprocal subspaces wherein one is spacetime, imbedded in the three higher dimensions of emotion, mind and spirit. This model has the quantitative capacity that allows us to understand the new data. This particular BCBS generates (1) simultaneous particle and information wave behavior, (2) connectedness between any two points of spacetime, (3) non-local forces, (4) dual aspects of any measured material property, one from each subspace, with the magnitude ratio of the two aspects depending upon a higher dimensional coupling medium that can be modulated by human intention and (5) non-local information entanglement between any two parts of the overall consciousness-connected system.
XXUtilizing the measured pH(t)-data, this BCBS reference frame is utilized to calculate the spectral amplitude profile of the reciprocal-space aspect as well as the magnitude of the direct-space aspect. This BCBS reference frame is also utilized in a quantitative way to show how information entanglement naturally comes about when the experimental system consists of multiple parts. The various quantitative factors involved in calculating magnitudes of information entanglement between non-local sites, having different degrees of departure from the U(1) EM gauge symmetry state, are demonstrated.


http://www.tiller.org/
http://tillerfoundation.com/archive.htm
http://www.bigsurtapes.com/merchant.mv177.htm

Special Appearance by William Tiller in

What the $#*! Do We Know?

"What the $#*! Do We Know?," a film on mysticism and science called " a provocative blast of fresh air," By the Tacoma News Tribune, and "A tidy, slick, and thoroughly compelling documentary-infused narrative." by the Portland Mercury, features Academy AwardT winner Marlee Matlin (Children of a Lesser God, West Wing) who finds herself in a fantastic Alice-in-Wonderland experience when her uninspired life literally begins to unravel, revealing the uncertain world of the quantum field hidden behind what we consider to be our normal, waking reality. Her story illustrates, in narrative form, the ideas woven together by a Greek chorus of top scientists, physicians, mystics, and theologians including William Tiller, Fred Alan Wolf, Amit Goswami, and Candace Pert. In documentary form they reveal that science and spirituality are not different modes of thought, but, in fact, describe the same thing. For show dates and locales, please visit www.whatthebleep.com

Before I can venture an opinion but, to quote Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

(edited for 1st reading)

The first thing I notice is the remarkable coincidence between the subject and the author's names:

W.A. Tiller? - A tiller is a seedling leaf structure in wheat.
W.E. Dibble, Jr? - Edible?

Then I find a scientific article titled "Tiller Emision and Dry Mass Accumulation of Wheat Cultivars Under Stress" Which studies among other things the effect of Ph on Tiller Emissions.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/sa/v61n3/a04v61n3.pdf

Then I notice that all of the google hits using Tiller and Standford point back to commercial Websites .COM rather than .ORG or .EDU

Then I notice that There are no other papers published by W.A. Tiller besides the ones in question. One thing I know about academics is the "Publish or perish" rule. If you do not publish prolifically you do not survive. Yet Tiller managed to become professor Emeritus at Stanford and there is no trace of him in the scientific community?

To quote an earlier post, "possible but highly unlikely"

The trials are clean.

If it was, it would be accessible as a scientific paper through Stanford University, or be published in a science magazine somewhere. It seems to be standing alone with no reference to earlier work BY OTHER SCIENTISTS, and with no other scientific papers referencing it either. Therefore it has not been subject to peer review and does not qualify as a scientific paper regardless of Professor Tiller's claimed honorifics.

A professor emeritus at a university would have published papers numbering in the hundreds.

if you dig a little deeper.

Dr. Winston O'Boogie, who is associated with but a couple rock albums.

His bio claims over 300 papers over his lifetime. If his work was any good thousands of scientists would be referencing his work and building on it.

Here's another example. Ever heard of J. Lell Elliot? Probably not. He is an obscure professor of Chemistry from my old Alma Mater. But if you google his name he will come up instantly as Professor Emeritus at Pan American University.

Try the same trick on Tiller and you get zip from Stanford.

That is abject elitism of the worst kind.

The work stands on its own, and the significance therin is what matters. It is not about the man, or somekind of hero worship.

Read his work before you judge.

http://www.tiller.org/

It is a man's opinion and he is entitled to it. My objection is to having personal opinion couched as scientific fact and dressed in the trappings of science.

Start with the fact that the abstract quotes "experimental data provided in Parts I and II" but parts I and II are missing and therefore can't be scrutinized. I do not know whether Tiller's assertion of non-local information entanglement are true, but his paper does not support such proposition. His references are all to other papers published by himself, and none of them come from recognized sources. There has been ample work done on information entanglement, a lot of it at Stanford, yet he quotes not a single source, and no source quotes him:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

Therein lies the difference between real science and pseudo-science.

He is breaking new ground and the fact that many others are too timid to follow in his wake means nothing.

I provided a link to his new papers, you haven't bother to make a fair survey.

Your analysis of his work is superficial, at best.

You are certainly entitled to dismiss my opinion.

I just insisted on fairness and clarity.

Then summarize for me what Tiller is saying. Show me that you understand him well enough to say that it is telling the truth. Pick any one equation in his document and translate it into plain English.

If you don't wish to avail yourself of cutting edge work of the most fascinating sort, that is your choice.

I looked at the paper and it was disconnected gibberish. Cuts-and-pastes from other people's genuine scientific work with no credit given and no relationship between one part and another.

This is a scientific hoax, and a poor one at that. It saddens me to see how it devalues the work of real scientists.

If you want to take Tiller on faith go right ahead. It is a free country. But don't try to sell it if you don't understand it yourself.

of the old Door's Live double album is when Jim asks a couple people, "Is that any way to behave at a rock-n-roll concert?"

I guess in a very real sense, we could thank you two for role-modeling what direction not to take this discussion in. (grin)

We are all going to have different opinions. A book that means a great deal to me may seem worthless -- or worse -- to the next person. I have not read a book of fiction in over 30 years. Yet as one was recommended to me, I will certainly consider it.

If it is recommended and I say, "No," (even "No, thank you") it closes a door. "Yes" opens doors. Even Jim would agree with that.

You two might consider terminating the discussion on the one book. Yes?

You haven't read the papers in the peer-reviewed journals, nor listened to any of his intvws or lectures. Yet presume to know the nature and value of his work, AND my involvement with it.

You are hardly scientific in your methods, and betray the value of your own opinion.

Had you bothered, you would have found his experiments rigorous, elegant and compelling. Not to mention meaningful and hugely significant.

You are an emotional dogmatist.

I wouldn't give this any credibility, he uses a lot of terms from physics, none of which in the proper context. This is most likely a hoax to get you to buy the book. This is not science.

I suggest you contact Stanford, or review the papers if, you doubt.

Special autographed copies of William Tiller's books available. Call toll-free 888-281-5170; for international orders call 620-229-8979. $15.00 extra per book.

Conscious Acts of Creation:

The Emergence of a New Physics

by

William A Tiller, Walter Dibble Jr., Michael Kohane

This book is an "eye-opener" for both non-scientists and scientists, metaphysicians and physicians, students and teachers and all people with a real interest in how science moves our world. It concerns unactualized human capabilities, opportunities and adventures for all of us in the years ahead.

For the first time, a rigorous experimental protocol is available to allow human qualities to meaningfully alter the properties of physical materials via specific human intentions!

The experimental data portion of this book shows, via the use of IIEDs (Intention Imprinted Electrical Devices), how human intention can robustly influence physical reality with measurement amplitude changes by as much as 100 times the instrument measurement accuracy.

The described experiments deal with inorganic materials like water, in vitro organic materials like enzymes and in vitro living systems like fruit fly larvae.

This experimental data shows how after ~3 months of continued use of the IIEDs in a particular laboratory space, that space becomes "conditioned" to a higher state of physics Gauge symmetry than present in normal locales.

In a "conditioned" space, human intention acts as a true thermodynamic potential to significantly influence the many chemical, electrical and biological processes of nature.

This book also provides a "work in progress" – type of theoretical model that allows us to explain how this experimental procedure works to produce such striking changes in measurement amplitudes.
"Reviews"
"This book by Tiller, Dibble and Kohane is at once a ‘magnum opus’ and a ‘tour de force’. The ‘whole person healing’ community will be in deep debt to these authors for many years."
XXXX- Professor Rustum Roy (Director, Materials Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University)

"…Tiller makes a claim that would not only revolutionize medicine but our perception and approach to all reality. If there are prophets in our extraordinary times he is likely one of them. His claim is a bold one indeed: human consciousness contributes to the creation and direction of the universe."
XXXX- Wayne Jonas, M.D. (Former Director of both the Office of Alternative medicine at the National Institutes of Health and the Medical Research Fellowship at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; currently founding Director of the Samueli Institute)

"Your (Tiller’s) new book, I am sure, may long be remembered as the book that started out the scientific work in a new area and thus created a new era in science."
XXXX- Professor George Sudarshan (Physics Department, University of Texas, Austin)

"…this book combines a brilliant theoretical model with several experiments that test and convincingly demonstrate mechanisms for intention to influence physical reality…
Conscious Acts of Creation will take the reader beyond the realm of the five senses and expand one’s view of himself or herself as a co-creator of reality. It is for this reason that this book is recommended not only for scientists, engineers, and health care practitioners…but also for everyone who seeks to maximize his or her human experience."
XXXX- Dave Stein, reviewer. "The Center for Frontier Sciences"

" This reviewer suggests that this book is destined to be a classic that may someday rank with the early publications on the theory of relativity."
XXXX- Hal Fox, editor. "Journal of New Energy"



Science and Human Transformation:

Subtle Energies, Intentionality and Consciousness

by

William A Tiller, PhD.

Excerpts from "Science and Human Transformation"
Description of "Science and Human Transformation"

"Reviews"

Tiller has written a very special story about becoming! I know that anyone who is exposed to this book in any depth will come away with a different mindset, one that will provide tremendous enthusiasm for life and just how to use this new understanding to develop a more effective set of values and attitudes.
XXXX- Jack Holland, PhD., D.S.D.

"This book sets in motion a profound and satisfying new paradigm for medicine and medical science for the coming centuries. It integrates a multitude of previously disconnected pieces of the human health puzzle into an internally self-consistent framework for understanding both physical nature and the solid foundation upon which to build."
XXXX- C. Normal Shealy, M.D.

"The wondrous but clear evidence cogently presented in this book is extremely compelling, and Tiller’s insights and logical envisionings are equally compelling. Science and Human Transformation is one of the most important bridges into the advancing sciences of the next century, and many will walk across it."
XXXX- Ingo Swann

"This book postulates a model for the structure of the physical and non-physical Universe. In terms of this model, it addresses longstanding issues in physics, parapsychology, homeopathy, magnetic healing, and related disciplines…from physics to biochemistry, from dowsing to QiGong, from acupuncture to remote viewing, from radionics to Feng Shui, from Chi flow to chakras, from manifestation to Consciousness itself. The myriad of topics…make this book essential reading for scientists, practitioners of the healing and subtle energy arts, and people consciously committed to a spiritual growth path…"
XXXX- Dave Stein, "Frontier Perspectives"

"It is a brilliant work in the tradition of such other great works of synthesis as Kepler’s Mysterium Cosmographicum…Tiller, a leading scientist, now retired, taught and studied the structure of matter at Stanford…presents us with no less than his grand unified Theory of Everything. Unlike most other Theories of Everything…Dr. Tiller actually delivers the goods."
XXXX-David Joffee, "ISSSEEM Magazine"

I'm sorry, but that's what my modest understanding of QM tells me. Bogus of Really Bad Kook (RBK).

"Paranormal" is not the problem, Quantum-Mind hypothesis has no problem explaining such fenomena. Kookiness is not the problem, there are also Seriously Genious Kooks (SGK) who don't publish through Respected Academic Channels (RAC) but work on the fringe/forefront/way ahead/beyond, like Jack Sarfatti: http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/pq/pq.htm

The problem is that the blather of the abstract is not science at all, just very loose language of vague and poorly understood consepts that don't make any sense scientifically when put together.

Have a look at the work.

for me. Especially as the links to pdf's don't work. I'm not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with the experimental studies of paranormal that are referred to. However, the QM gibberish he tries to explain that experimental data is clearly nothing but pseudo-scientific gibberish.

Please understand, for a layman I've read extensively the QM gibberish, especially the kookiest, fringiest stuff that main stream science still mostly refuses to take seriously, and I'm real enthusiast about it! So my rejection is not emotional one but based on most open-minded scientific criteria. The problem I have with this kind of intuitional solo thinking that Tiller is example of is that it does disservice to serious quantum approaches to consciousness. Yes, IMO his basic intuition about consciousness, quantum entanglement and paranormal is sound one, but the model he's developed is not, it's bogus.

or any of his determinations, though I enjoy listening to him discuss them. The work is compelling on its own, and speaks clearly and with a loud voice.

There is a clear impact of intention on the physical world. Draw your own conclusions.

Got no problem with that. See for example: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/

Vouching or disparaging models is a personal interest of mine, sorry but I love them and aspire for a consistent world view! :)

If you are interested in the kind of gibberish that fullfills the criteria for scientific gibberish, check the Sarfatti link to the presentation of his model I gave earlier.

as gibberish does.

I can take it or leave it.

Telekinesis is merely terminology. Evidence for it in the laboratory is merely another window into nature.

What does it mean?

if we try to talk to each other and understand. Verifiable evidence is nice way to widen one's horizons outside personal experience. IMHO neither is "merely".

What does it mean? Interesting implications for such classic questions as free will/intention and mind-body problem, forinstance. That perhaps science can advance our understanding of age old philosophical philosophical problems that many think are unsolvable.

What does it mean to you?

miserably.

Whether by telekinesis (as though I fully understand that concept) or some other mechanism, intention can influence matter. This is apparently an aspect of our material world.

What this fully means is beyond me, but one thing it clearly means is we have been very wrong in our view of this. We need to regroup. That's plenty of meaning for me now. I'm just going to meditate on it and let the better thinkers flesh it out.

but I think my post on the torture involved in reading my posts, and the human being who found that evidence of "hubris," sets a new standard for failed stabs at humor!

reluctantly.

would help rigid mind like mine to better grasp the full range of meanings... :)

If our world is half material, half spiritual/mind-like (the quantum-mind model or some other) and the difference is rather aspectual than strict cartesian divide, it is easy to see that the difference between how intention can move our own muscles and how intention can move matter at distance (telekinesis) is less fundamental than previously thought.

The problem of accepting this new paradigm is IMHO for many people mainly psychological, insecurity and fear of power and the responsibility it brings. We can't understand what this fully means unless we conquer the fear.

it is, sort of, telechemistry. This is altogether different in its implication.

You made a good point:

"The problem of accepting this new paradigm is IMHO for many people mainly psychological, insecurity and fear of power and the responsibility it brings. We can't understand what this fully means unless we conquer the fear."

It always occurs to me that the nature of things is beyond paradigm, people who ignore the clues only sacrifice understanding. Reality stays the same. Or does reality evolve as it is understood? Does the onion get sweeter as it is peeled, layer by layer?

is the best way I've heard it put in a nutshell.

Understanding causality is one of the biggest challenges. Not only complex systems, chaos and statistical causality, but also causality that is not dependent on our every-day perception of time/space, and holistic causality where totality of everything simultaneously affects single event - and vice verca(?).

I don't know if lot's of folks are willing to abandon the whole notion of causality (nature of which was at the center of the famous argument between Bohr and Einstein, "does God throw dice"), but certainly the classic clock-work view of causality is in need of profound revaluation because of quantum revolution in the science.

And as for Science, Religion and Art, none of them is opposite to creativity.

Creativity is the engine that drives all three.

(edited to add: )

There is no reason to abandon causality wholesale any more than there is a reason to abandon Newtoniam mechanics because it does not incorporate relativistic effects. As long as you know the limitations you can ignore relativity and save yourself a lot of computational headaches.

There seems to be this notion that reality is a flat surface upon which we can map out all human endaevors; That reality can be partitioned into non-intersecting categories.

I believe that each one of our categories of knowledge is a frame of reference that takes the same facts and organizes them into an internaly consistent world view. Some of the frames of reference are interconnected directly, such as biology, chemistry, physics. Some are not, for example Biblical Creationism and Darwinian Evolution. The frames do not have to be connected, they just have to be internaly consistent in order to satisfy Man's need to know.

Two books that I recommend on this subject are "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", and "The Mind's I : Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul" both by Douglas R. Hofstadter

My "problem" is that I want the frames connected and the whole thing consistent, not fragmented into non-intersecting categories, so I have no problem being very cruel about what is clearly not consistent with the whole thing. :)

is everyone's "problem".

On several of his essays he explores concept of layered realities. One of the essays uses the analogy of a sentient ant hill named Aunt Hillary who communicates by the changing patterns of ant trails around the hill. Although the hill is sentient, none of the ants are sentient themselves and are totally unaware that their comings and goings represent the thoughts of a higher entity. One day a flood destroys the hill and Aunt Hillary's personality along with it. After the flood a new sentient personality emerges but it is not Aunt Hillary. I think it is a metaphor for personality changes caused by traumatic injury. But the point is that the reality of Aunt Hillary and the reality of the ants coexist within the same universe without necessarily being aware of each other.

What do we mean by being aware? Only the consciouss content of our minds or something else, causal and/or observational relation? Our terminology for mental phenomena is very fuzzy and untransparent, which makes discussing them very difficult.

One of the central questions - or confusions - in QM, or rather the mainstream interpretations of it, is the presumption of collapse of wave-function (in other words from potentiality to actuality), which happens only through consciouss observation. Thus there was no universe in existance before first observation event, literally creating the whole thing and it's history, raising the question from where did the observer (ie. something like me) emerge. This ultrasolipsism is (one of the) extremist logical conclusions of the mainstream interpretation of QM (e.g. Bohr), other is extremist predetermination, all the actualities were "decided" in the Big Bang, leaving no room for free will.

Needles to say, neither of those extremist views is to my liking. Other interpretations, like Bohm, don't make the presumption of collapse of wave-function, but give it ontological status. What remains is the problem of decoherence, how classical space-time states emerge from quantum states. The answer, allowed by ontological status of wave function, is to give that wave function some rudimentary mental aspects, so that everything is sort of observing and "aware" or "consciouss" of everything all the time. Naturally this kind of non-materialistic holism which denies humans/life the sole ownership of consciousness is also quite extremist, but with QM only extremist views are available. :)

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that unless you are happy with ultrasolipsism or ultradeterminism (which is of course perfectly OK if that satisfies ones esthetic ideals), only possibility left would seem to be holism, that the reality of Aunt Hillary and the reality of the ants can coexist within the same universe BECAUSE of being aware of each other on some level. Naturally next question is what kind of awareness (or whatever word we choose to use) are we talking about, in which ways human awareness is different and similar and causally related to this more general notion of awareness of 'mind-like'.


Also, the story had different metaphor for me, Buddhist metaphor. It's flooding all the time, Aunt Hillary was never the same Aunt Hillary but allways different Aunt Hillary from flood to flood, as there is nothing constant. Aunt Hillary's personality just THINKS she's Aunt Hillary and that's why she's "unaware" that it's flooding all the time, that she's the flood, the aunts, the whole shebang-shebang. ;)

My memory of GEB is fading. It's been a long time but I do remember now there were many floods.

I like the holistic interpretation of being, and I like Hofstadter's idea that a holistic frame of reference of the universe can 'float' on top of a reductionists frame, which itself floats on a holistic one, and on, and on. It reminds me of "The Turbulent Mirror" by John Briggs and F. David Peat, where they quote Joseph Campbell quoting Schopenhauer:

"Schopenhauer...points out that when you reach an advanced age and look back over your lifetime, it can seem to have had a consistent order and plan, as though composed by some novelist. Events that when they occurred had seemed accidental and of little moment turn out to have been indispensable factors in the composition of a consistent plot. So who composed that plot? Schopenhauer suggests that just as your dreams are composed by an aspect of yourself of which your consciousness is unaware, so, too, your whole life is composed by the will within you. And just as people whom you will have met apparently by mere chance became leading agents in the structuring of your life, so, too, will you have served unknowingly as an agent, giving meaning to the lives of others. The whole thing gears together like one big symphony, with everything unconsciously structuring everything else...one great dream of a single dreamer in which all the dream characters dream, too;...Everything arises in mutual relation to everything else, so you can’t blame anybody for anything. It is even as though there were a single intention behind it all, which always makes some kind of sense, though none of us knows what the sense might be, or has lived the life that he quite intended."

-Joseph Campbell

Last week, one of the aggressive atheists informed me that Campbell had been discredited. I got a laugh out of that. Great quote!

Thanks for gathering it up like that. Makes it more manageable for minds like mine to wrap around and attempt to strangle.

One question I'd ask is at what level of conscious observation does the wave function submit to? What quality of observation causes it to collapse? Is there some sort of critical level that triggers it?

This pushes me toward more holistic views. Though, I doubt existence needs my opinion or obervations.

"One question I'd ask is at what level of conscious observation does the wave function submit to? What quality of observation causes it to collapse? Is there some sort of critical level that triggers it?"

Inference, inference. The empirical starting point is human observation of quantum phenomena, which cannot happen directly but only after the observation act produces something to observe, particles. It became clear very early that the act of observation affects what is observed (e.g. Schrödinger's uncertainty principle), or CAUSES something to be observed, if we accept the notion of collapse of the wave function, and that drawing line between observer equipment (including conscience) and what is observed, is anything but simple matter, raising the question is it even possible to put up or presume any barrier between that would justify the basic categories of subject and object.

The Bohmian approach largely leads to the view that what we think about as consciouss observation is actually interplay of complex systems of wave functions and matter (or mind-like and rock-like) with slightly less complex systems of wave functions and matter in a dynamic process that is ultimately holistic. We have to start from scratch by admitting that we do not have any clear understanding how notions like 'consciouss' or "observation" relate to the physical world (physis = nature, not presuming naive materialism). If we aim to talk about nature meaningfully, "objectively", it seems to me we have to first dethrone the notion of subject, that there exists something (in our heads?) that anything has to really submit to. ;)

Observations are events that nobody can seriously even attempt to deny, the most primary stuff. Observables or beables, almost as hard to refute. But what about observers? Is there really any objective, logical reason to necessitate and presume such things other than our common sense experience of being Me?

So by now we have arrived at point where we can refrace question more objectively and hopefully more meaningfully: How do these observation events, observables, beables whatever go on about doing their business, are the triggers and such etc, and what do potential answers to these questions reveal to us about our experiences of consciousness, sense of being me etc?

So far, classical materialisic solutions of mind emerging from matter are still logically consistent with this line of questioning, but they don't stand up to our esthetic scientific standards, not only reluctance to accept strong solipsism or determinism but also not up to Ockham's razor; they do poor job explaining the hard problem of consciousness the strong analogical relations between ourselves and the world; and if even some of the empirical data on paranormal is accepted, case is closed.

OK- aside from solipsism and wave function collapse, etc, how is it all matter is not already quantumly entangled, if it all emerged from a singularity? Is it because the nature of matter and physics evolved along the initial instant?

You really pose difficult questions! :D

As I understand it, decoherence is a term that describes the border between classical systems, relatively stupid lumps of matter like rocks, and coherent quantum systems where phenomena like entanglment still take place.

The original ERP experiment suggested by Einstein was only about entangled spin of single particles, "spooky action at distance", now the experimentary technology has advanced to state where quantum coherent (and entangled) events are observable on (bio)molecule level in some contexts. Quantum Mind hypothesis suggests that quantum coherence can survive in the context of living brain - and perhaps beyond.

That's the current state of "hard" science. Whether everything, all matter and else, is or is not quantum entangled and on what level and contexts, we simply don't know, we are probably asking the wrong questions. Non-local holism certainly suggests everything is somehow "entangled", but because of the very holism, it's difficult to form analytical sentences about what that means. At least for doofus like me. :)

Bohm uses the metaphor of a river (cf. holomovement/singularity) in which whirlpools (observables/beables) can "explicate" and have semi-independent, conditional existance. I don't know if that is helpfull, I can only hope so.

To finish, I'm not certain if you refer to Big Bang by terms singularity and initial instant. But according to this theory (and many others) Big Bang and our special Universe is just one such whirlpool in the river of holomovement, and the nature of matter and physics (or to be more precise, constants/fluctuants of Nature) have in the endless process of creation unlimited number of attempts to get it "right", so that observers like us can exist in one Universe and pose questions about its nature. So what you get in the end is "intelligent design" by just giving the whole shebang just enough tries! :D

Next question, naturally, is are all of these or just some of the Universes holistic, and is any form of communication/interaction possible between Universes. Honestly, I dunno!

a conversation ender, and I would say adios muchacho if you claimed to know:

"Next question, naturally, is are all of these or just some of the Universes holistic, and is any form of communication/interaction possible between Universes. Honestly, I dunno!"

In fact, if you claimed certain knowledge of other Universes, I would be suspicious. Beyond all that, I'm still unclear on my original question. It goes to the heart of Quantum Entanglement, and while I'm sure I'm missing something here, it leaves me perplexed.

---

What Happened Before the Big Bang?

One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of “wormholes” and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally “cracked” into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the “quantum leap” to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The cur rent expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe.

http://www.mkaku.org/

that had, in large part, treated science and religion as opposites. When a few of us said, in effect, that the two go hand in hand, those who were advocating science over religion rejected that approach. Thus, the first post in this thread stated, "It does away with the need to see science and religion as polar opposites."

You did clearly state Science AND Religion in the thread title, not Science Vs Religion.

To me they are not opposites, they are orthogonal.

but not Science and Religion. The point of this whole thread is to reveal the parallels.

a person who identified himself as a scientist seemed focused on insulting any opinion that reflected a belief in things spiritual or religious. He and a partner in his efforts referred to belief in an "after-life" as a form of schizophrenia. I asked a half-dozen times in a half-dozen places a simple question: as we can all tell the difference between a living body and a corpse, what happens to that life-force that distinguishes "life" when a person dies? It seems a fair question .... one that human beings have been asking for as long as we have been human, one that our neanderthal cousins asked .... and one which we can only have theories, because we are human and alive.

I suspect that noology represents one of the more logical and hopeful theories. It views the earth as having a life-force, and the universe as being a constant life-force. That this combines the spiritual with the scientific is self-evident.

(As a retired psychiatrict social worker, it also strikes me as shallow to make jokes about schizophrenia. Noology allows us the more progressive option of seeing schizophrenia as a legitimate life experience worthy of respect, not ridicule.)

Light reading. He is a science fiction writer. One of my favorite novels is "Code of The Lifemaker" where A race of sentient, naturally evolving robots theorize that a godlike intelligence that was not machine must have created the first machine. And then humans show up.

The characters in the novel reflect many of the differing views of science and mysticism, and their arguments parallel those you described in your post.

I'm going to see one of my attorneys in a near-by small cities tomorrow, one of the consequences of being the victim of a driver talking on a cell phone. A hidden blessing is that his office is very near a good bookstore.

On another thread, people were discussing Elaine Pagels. Many people were familiar with her book, The Gnostic Gospels. Fewer seemed to have read her newest book, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. The first chapter is extremely painful -- she writes about the death of her child, which is certainly the type of experience that Frankl speaks of. At that point in her life, the ordinary church experience did not meet her needs. It is a powerful book. Are you familiar with it?

But I will add Pagels to my list. Though for the past few years I've been more focused on XVI century history. Right now I'm reading "Spain 1469-1714" by Henry Kamen and "A World Lit only by Fire, the Medieval Mind And the Renaissance" by William Manchester.

Best of luck resolving the more pressing legal problems of destruction by distraction. ;(

and while they can scare me a bit at times, I find flashes of understanding in their thinking that are deeply insightful.

On the other hand, I prefer to think of neanderthals as in-laws, rather than cousins.

but not Science and Religion. The point of this whole thread is to reveal the parallels.

There have been a number of somewhat toxic threads, where people of opposing views pointed to the weakest parts of "science" and "religion." That's a wonderful way to create false divisions. By focusing on the strengths of each, we find the potential for unity.

It's good to understand the relationship between the two. The ancestor and the womb are the same thing.

would be to talk about "mindlike" and "rocklike" aspects of being. Living beings have both aspects in high complexity, "inanimate" matter is much less complex, less dynamic system. But I have no problems calling the ability of a rock to maintain it's form for a long period 'memory'.

I think that a fossil is an example of that, too.

Holographic.

To allow something that is so beautiful and "miraculous" (human consciousness) to become an instrument for violating life is perhaps the greatest tragedy. To encourage it in others is perhaps the greatest crime.

We have evolved to the point (actually, way past) where we can recognize this "truth." We can't blame our animal nature forever.

add: Our inner scapegoat.

is the cruelest, most corrupt cut of all.

Nothing sadder nor more supremely wrong than the defiling of the sacred in a misguided pursuit of it.

That they're willing unleash this monster.

And I think it's blaoney. It's just another way of divinding people into haves and have-nots.

I think we're all perfectly capable of being fully spiritual.

Neil Young used to sing that "even Richard Nixon has got a soul." That leaves open the door for even Dick Cheney ..... at least in scientific theory. (grin)

just goes to show how far some people have to go...

If you are REALLY interested at what is going on at the forefront of science, you may find these links interesting:

http://consciousness.arizona.edu/

and especially:

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/quantum/index.html

Science & Consciousness Review
http://www.sci-con.org/

thanks again! :)

I hope I didn't kill this thread.

:(

Jerry Garcia nailed it.

The universe is an all-inclusive, interconnected, holographic, fractalized, self-realizing,

entity.

A term introduced by R. Eucken (1846-1926) that describes an independent spiritual life that transcends the individual and the world. It is a philosophy that views spiritual reality as the expression of universal life that operates in and through humans, and which is regarded as recognizing the movement towards the actualization of a new layer of conscious energy that has evolved on earth with the corresponding evolution of mankind.

Should be called "Yesology".

This indicates a familiarity with it, because indeed a large part of human growth is the ability to say, "Yes!" rather than the constant "No!" "No!" "No!" that restricts us in our daily life.

is everything.

in our own lives when we have allowed an opportunity to slip by us because we thought, "I can't." We postpone doing the things that we should be doing, all the while fooling ourselves into believing that we will have an opportunity to do it "later." In truth, opportunity only comes once; another opportunity may come our way that looks the same, or that even smells the same, and possibly even feels the same. But it's not the same. Say "Yes!" to life at every opportunity.

truly.


http://www.counterbias.com/177.html

I think the term Noology refers to 'Nous', one of the many Greek words for 'mind'/'conscience'.

'Nous' in Hermeticism (base of Western occultism) was aproximately the same as Father/God in Gnosticism and Gnostic Christianity, but not the same as the imperfect materialistic Creator God (Demiurge/YHWH/Yaldabaoth/etc.) that many if not most Pistic Christians seem to worship.

It was too big an opening for my wiseguy self to let pass.

Wish you would elaborate. There are some terrific streaming lectures I've listened to from The Gnostic Society in LA.
http://www.gnosis.org/library.html


A Prayer for World Peace

May All Who Work For a World
Of Peace and Reason
Be Granted the Gifts
Of Strength and Courage,

May the Good That Dwells
Within Every Human Heart
Be Magnified,

May the Blessings of Truth
And Understanding Be Ours,
May the Sacrifice of All
Abide Within All of Us

And as We Create
And Plan for Tomorrow
May We Do so
In Sympathy With All Others.
Amen

http://www.gnostic.org/

I refuse to install it on my machine (again), even though I would like to listen to those lectures. One of those lectures is BTW about Hermeticism, if that is what you asked about.

Very briefly, there are no really big doctrinal differences between Hermeticism and Gnosticism, former has closer ties to Egyptian and Greek mythology, latter to Judeo-Christian mythology. Latest papyrus finds seem to indicate that Hermeticism predates Gnosticism and Christianity.

the download link is a pain to find, but it doesn't have all the 'baggage'.

when I was speaking of music, in particular, as a more effective channel to get deep truths out than what constitutes organized religion.

Those gentlemen taught me an awful lot.

Man's Search for Meaning has been very much like a guide book to me during tough times. I think the point of the religious argument threads also crosses paths with this philosophy since Hitler USED religion as a tool with which to bastardize science. I think it is important to view the flame wars in this context as well since I DO believe the flame wars to be a necessary (sorry for the poor choice of words) evil, in order to get to a place where religion can be respected WHILE people return to the necessity of secular government.

If anything, Frankl demonstrates why that wall between church and state is necessary...look what happened to the Jews when it collapsed.

of church and state in the sense that it is intended to keep the state from endorsing & promoting any religion. I also think that it is important that the state not build a wall that attempts to keep religious and spiritual folks from entering politics. Although I find the current influence of the "Christian right" reason for very serious concern, I do not want to close the door on Martin Luther King, Jr, or Malcolm X, or Daniel and Phillip Berrigan.

The experience of Frankl and others in Nazi Germany seems more an issue of science without conscience. In fact, that very issue was discussed by the world community. There were those of scientific mind who said that, despite the dark nature of Nazism, much of the science that occured was of value. I believe that most of the world agreed that because of the evil nature of Nazism, the science that resulted was not legitimate. In fact, in the mid-to late 1980s, when the federal government was working with Native Americans on what would become the 1991 Native American Burial Protection and Repatriation Act, we used this example to show that the "scienctific studies" that result from the robbing of graves and desecration of Sacred Objects needed to be treated as Nazi science. The government agreed.

I have read this book several times. One story he tells concerning the cruelty of a young girl 'Capo' would indeed cause one to search for meaning.

Frankl also suggested (To me) that fate plays a hand in life as if it were planned and that one could not escape fate. For example; "Ah" says death "I planned to meet him there" Referring to a servant wishing to escape death by running quickly to a distant city. (I have the complete story of Death and the servant if any one is interested)

180

of the servant/slave Omar, who rode the horses in an attempt to escape death? If so, it was one of Malcolm X's favorite fables about destiny, and the reason he rarely was as concerned about security asothers in his position.

That is the story. I was moved to copy it and save as a piece of interesting advice. I did not know about Malcolm X.

Interesting subject.

180

If you could post it, I think it would be a great addition to this discussion. I have Malcolm's version, as told by Percy Sutton, which I can post when I return shortly. It has wonderful symbolism, with the day vs night, and the horses. I'm glad you brought that up; it's one of my favorite fables, and I find very few people are familiar with it!

Does this not bring to mind the story of Death in Teheran? A rich and mighty Persian once walked in his garden with one of his servants. The servant cried that he had just encountered Death, who had threatened him. He begged his master to give him his fastest horse so that he could make haste and flee to Teheran, which he could reach that same evening. The master consented and the servant galloped off on the horse. On returning to his house the master himself met Death, and questioned him, "Why did you terrify and threaten my servant?" I did not threaten him; I only showed surprise in still finding him here when I planned to meet him tonight in Teheran," said Death.

Victor Frankl (experiences in a concentration camp)

180

Let's compare it to the version that Percy Sutton told in "Malcolm X: Make It Plain." Readers will recall that Sutton was a noted Harlem attorney and a New York State Assemblyman. He served as Malcolm's lawyer, and friend.

"In the rear of the car sat Malcolm with two people, one on each side, as was his habit as we left court. I said to him, 'Doesn't this disturb you having these people with guns?' He said, 'No, but it makes them happy.' And he says,'Have I told you the story of Omar the slave? Omar said to his maste, "Give me your fastest horse, I'm going to escape the Face of Death," it being a slave belief that if you rode by day and got through the day with the swiftness of the horse, you were safe by night. There were seven paths down which Omar could go. He started down the center path, pulled the horse back. Started to the left, and pulled the horse back again. Only a short distance down the third path stood the Face of Death. Death said to Omar, "For three days I've waited at this place for you to come. Why has it taken you so long?" And then Minister Malcolm said, 'So you see, counselor, you can twist, you can turn, but there's a destiny, so it really doesn't bother me having them here.' "

This was about a week before Malcolm was gunned down. I think that despite the slight error in Sutton's re-telling of the story, it sums up a part of Malcolm that is too often overlooked.

Is our population reaching the "Malthusian Wall?" Certainly the increase in density of human population will have a profound effect on how we adhere to religious principles and treat each other.

.... at the same time that many of the people in power in this country feign a moral stance, we find that they are very aware of the available resources on earth vs the rapidly increasing population.

Every time I see one of these threads, I roll my eyes. I only decided to check this one out because it had H2O Man's...dare I say it?...watermark on it. And I'm not disappointed. This is heightened dialogue.

Thank you.

I think the group on here are able to discuss this topic in a manner that it deserves. I'm glad you are joining us.

H2O Man suggested I post the text to this and not just the link (which I posted above).
--------------------------------------------------

Running Amok, in the Finest of Shoes
Fear and loathing in America


December 3 2004
Counterbias.com
by WJGA


Is there no more perfect phrase for the psychological climate in America than "fear and loathing"?

This patented phrase is from the fevered genius of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson and all rightful credit is his. An ugly but necessary preamble in this land of litigation and hustle and profit at all cost, but things like that must be said or risk be taken down by the snarling dogs of legal recourse.

Regardless, and all apologies aside, let the point be made: America is lost and searching. Despite the trumpeting of the tired nonsense that America is great, and sound, and will return to its brief and sparkling glory. The brutal point and ugly truth is that America has lost its way. America is no longer America. When every dollar that is spent to annihilate our "enemies" is equally invested in trying to coexist peacefully; when other cultures are respected and embraced and regarded as important and not just strange and different and in need of "Americanizing"; when lying and deceit lose their currency; when depth of spirit is as valued as depth of bank accounts; maybe then, the original promise of this country will have a chance of being realized. The world is watching – and loathing.

Something's happening here,
But you don't know what it is,
Do you Mr. Jones?
– Bob Dylan

In an old "Hey Rube" column, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson referred to this Dylan lyric and offered his astute psychosocial commentary.

While I couldn't agree more with Thompson's analysis, I see things a bit differently and would offer another perspective:

This is a subject that has been a personal preoccupation for decades, and just when an analysis begins to make sense it ratchets up to a whole new plateau. One aspect of American culture has become clearly paramount: a widespread acceptance of the philosophy of personal survival and welfare at all cost. Truth matters only when it is personally beneficial. Plausible deniability, a modus operandi of the ruling elite that grew out of the dark age of Nixon era Washington and found full bloom under Reagan, has now become solidly rooted in the fertile compost of America at large.

Nobody, it seems, will take responsibility for anything. Not only is there ubiquitous denial of anything compromising, there is an odd counter-phenomenon of a willingness to accept unwarranted credit. People everywhere are pretending to be talented and famous, and, oddly, accepted as so. Up is down and down is up. What is happening here? We fell down the rabbit hole a good while back and it is, collectively, just now beginning to dawn on us. The tragic consequence is magnified by a sense that the cultural tools to cope with this sort of problem have eroded as well. We have come to embrace bullies and demagogues and are loath to listen to hard truth. We want a yellow-brick road to candyland and don't want to recognize we are lost in a pointless forest.

This ethic of survival at all cost is in striking contrast to the indigenous American philosophy that "today is a good day to die" – an elegant and Zen-like reverence for divine will. Without this kind of acceptance and desire, on a broad scale, for an authentic existence, the world will grow ever uglier and more vulgar. Fights regularly break out in the stands of high school football games, men are killing each other over little league baseball, soccer moms are arrested for assault and running amok. It goes on and on. Look at the recent presidential election – sheesh – it all has the same smell: "my dog's badder than your dog, even if I have to cheat to prove it."

Are we doomed? George Harrison thought so, and considered naming his last album 'Your Planet Is Doomed, Part One'. He declared, "The world is going
mental as far as I'm concerned... Basically, I think the planet is doomed". George went on to say that things are speeding up because of technology and "...everything that is happening". "Everything" paints it with a bit of a broad brush, but he was certainly onto something.

Fat-cats grow fatter these days, while poets and painters starve. White collar criminals retire to gated communities, sometimes after a short stay in a country club prison. Vile toxins bubble up not only in the culture, but also in the landscape and in the drinking water, with those growing wealthy from it dying and passing on their ill-gotten wealth or living out their years in quiet well-feathered obscurity.

It is all finally coming home to roost, and while some might agree, it does little good to don a sandwich-board and take to the streets proclaiming "THE END IS NEAR!". Yet, it is way past time to pay casual regard. The signals have become too evident, too blatantly obvious. Clearly the message is on the verge of filtering down to the mainstream. When that happens, it will be, as usual, too late and entirely out of our hands. Perhaps it is too late already. But what is there to do?

There is no easy remedy for the self-indulgence that plagues America. It is so reinforced by our impatient ways, and so woven into the fabric of our culture. Until this black tide is turned by soul searching and self-realization on a mass scale, nothing will change. If and when it does, it is probably too late anyway. Things are that bad. Why bother? Life as it is will go on, at least for a while, and the ethos that 'anything that enhances the bottom line is good' will continue, and the storm clouds will continue to gather.

Oh, and now there is this "war"...

The Dancing WuLi Masters: An Overview of the New Physics
by Gary Zukav


The Tao of Physics
by FRITJOF CAPRA

First published in 1975, The Tao of Physics rode the wave of fascination in exotic East Asian philosophies. Decades later, it still stands up to scrutiny, explicating not only Eastern philosophies but also how modern physics forces us into conceptions that have remarkable parallels. Covering over 3,000 years of widely divergent traditions across Asia, Capra can't help but blur lines in his generalizations. But the big picture is enough to see the value in them of experiential knowledge, the limits of objectivity, the absence of foundational matter, the interrelation of all things and events, and the fact that process is primary, not things. Capra finds the same notions in modern physics. Those approaching Eastern thought from a background of Western science will find reliable introductions here to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism and learn how commonalities among these systems of thought can offer a sort of philosophical underpinning for modern science. And those approaching modern physics from a background in Eastern mysticism will find precise yet comprehensible descriptions of a Western science that may reinvigorate a hope in the positive potential of scientific knowledge. Whatever your background, The Tao of Physics is a brilliant essay on the meeting of East and West, and on the invaluable possibilities that such a union promises. --Brian Bruya


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570625190/qid=1...

The Web of Life : A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems
by FRITJOF CAPRA

God and the Ways of Knowing
by Jean Danielou, Walter Robert

"It is always dangerous to speak of God" Origen, February 27, 2004

"He is what we say, and yet He is not. He is all that is and nothing that is." Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagite.

"It is true that all we say of Him seems utterly unworthy, in comparison with what He is; and accordingly we fear that what we say may conceal more than it reveals of His nature, and may be more of a hindrance than a help. We should wish, too, after everything we have said, to say the opposite. Because at one and the same time it seems that all we say of Him is true, and also untrue." Danielou's foreword

Is it necessary to speak of God?
"For He is always unknown, He is always paradoxically, well known." J. Danielou adds; "Emmanuel Berl said recently that he had never met an atheist, only men who believe in God, without knowing exactly what they believe."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089870939...

I was probably a little too young when I read it though. I still have the book although I think it's buried in a box in storage.

Recently I had the occasion to post about another science/spirituality book that I read years ago:

Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth
By R. Buckminster Fuller

According to Amazon.com, the book isn't available anymore, but you can read it online if you're interested. It's an easy and rewarding read.

FYI - I looked through the online version of the book and noticed that it was posted incorrectly. It appears that the whole book is on the first page.

This reminds me that I also have a rare transcript of a lecture that Bucky gave in 1971 at a college in London. I think it's in the same box as Capra's book.

Must. Retrieve. Box. :)

edit: just found out that tags don't work in the subject line.

Science, Order and Creativity, Second Edition
by David Bohm, F. David Peat

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415171830/qid=1102214796/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/103-0514975-3540623?v=glance&s=books

IMHO Bohm does not (unnecessarily) mystify things, he knows and understands science way better than Capra, being himself one of the real top guys, but at the same time is often more radical than Capra, both in "spiritual" realm and especially social level.

Living time and the integration of the life
By Maurice Nicoll.

(This book blew my doors off like no other. He has written on Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, as well.)

---
nicoll on cosmos, March 26, 2003
Reviewer: A reader
I don't like Nicoll's Platonism, but I forgive it in light of the brilliance of his exposition and even occasional expansion of Ouspensky's theory of time. As a primarily cosmological work, it is much deeper than Nicoll's better-known Psychological Commentaries. If you like New Model of the Universe and O's other works, you'll like this.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0722401469/qid=1102215951/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-5186344-2440809?v=glance&s=books
--

Thanks for the book tip, I know what you are saying about Capra.

That amazon review was not helpfull, but time is one real hard nut to crack, I wonder what is his take.

I've read (very little) Gurdijeff, none Ouspensky.

Ouspensky was a student and disciple of Gurdjieff that ultimately broke with the master to chart a bit of a different course. He is fascinating and well worth a look. Nicoll is an excellent scholar, I suspect his books on the two may be the best. I'm not sure.

is that creativity has something to do with moving between timefull(?) and timeless orders, e.g. generative (timeless) order of musical composition and timed order of acoustic expression. Best known example of is of course Einstein's creative realization that time and space are fundamentally same.

But I'm afraid Einstein is far from explaining all our time/timelessness related consciouss experiences, there seems to be something loop-like to our time experience - or time creation!? How this is related, if it is, to synchronicity/telepathy, precognition etc, no idea. :D

if you think you understand it, then you don't.

Bohm has come so far closest to giving meaningfull answer to WHY we really can't understand QM, plus also showing how we can still try to talk about it meaningfully. ;)

It IS the Tao.

:}

dreams are interesting too

Affecting space-time fabric (the "rock-like") in dream-states is pretty hard if possible at all (real pro stuff :D), but some conscioussness related functions (the "mind-like") like observing and even sharing information on some level are easier, so I've heard...

don't need to (directly) affect space-time fabric in order to be meaningful. The experience of being conscious "outside" of space-time is reward in itself.

Although I did have a dream once that coincided in a very strange way with physical events.

from Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden" (page180)

In dreams we are sometimes aware that a small portion of us is placidly watching; often, off in a corner of the dream, there is a kind of observer. It is this "watcher" part of our minds that occassionally -- sometimes in the midst of a nightmare -- will say to us, "This is only a dream." It is the "watcher" who appreciates the dramatic unity of a finely structured dream plot. Most of the time, however, the "watcher" is entirely silent. In psychedelic drug experiences -- for example, with marijuana or LSD -- the presence of such a "watcher" is commonly reported. LSD experiences may be terrfiying in the extreme, and several people have told me that the difference between sanity and insanity in the LSD experience rests entirely on the continued presence of the "watcher," a small, silent portion of the waking consciousness.

In one marijuana experience, my informant became aware of the presence and, in a strange way, the inappropriateness of this silent "watcher," who responds with interest and occasional critical comment to the kaleidoscopic dream imagery of the marijuana experience but is not part of it. "Who are you?" my informant silently asked it. "Who wants to know?" it replied, making the experience very like a Sufi or Zen parable. But my informant's question is a deep one. I would suggest that the observer is a small part of the critical faculties of the left hemisphere, functioning much more in psychedelic than in dream experiences, but present to a degree in both. However, the ancient query, "Who is it who asks the question?" is still unanswered; perhaps it is another component of the left cerebral hemisphere.

who wakes the young mother when the infant stirs. Spirituality rests with the "watcher." Frankl speaks of the spiritual being located in the unconscious.

seems to communicate mostly in feelings and non-linguistic symbols like visualizations. In dreams states the constantly interpreting and translating faculty of me-consciousness has lost part of its grip and the self is more open to this kind of transfer/sharing of meaning.

or the eternal blather going on inside our heads, it seems very plausible that the left and right hemispheres play crucial role in that. But we should allways be carefull not to oversimplify or overgeneralize a complex process like consciouss experience.

The "observer" is somehow linked to this differentiated hemisphere system, but how? It seems that the left (IIRC) does the direct perception bit, "world as it is", without ability to lie. Right hemisphere, the linguistic faculty, interpretes this feed and transforms it into conscious stream of thoughts. Of course this dialogue (or rather quarrel of noise of thoughs arguing with silence of perception ;)) is dynamic one, not unlike the good old thesis-antithesis->synthesis threesome. So my guess is that the third, the objective "observer" which observes the stream of noise called thoughts, is somehow CONSTANTLY born out of that quarreling dialogue, never able to reach or observe itself directly.

What often happens with the Great Ego-Punisher, commonly known as Cannabis, is that the process seems to "slow down" enough, at least on subjective level, so that the observer is ALMOST able to observe also itself so it's presence is felt more concretely. And naturally I was high when I originally came up with (most of) this theory I've been now trying to explain! :smoke:

In fact it is meditation technique 101 in Zen, in many magical practices etc. to move one's "center of being" from the stream of thoughts to the observer of that stream, at first by consciouss effort and then staying "there" constantly, to loosen up and get distance to that stream in order to slowly purify mind, getting rid of delusions and gaining freedom from mechanical thinking by observing them to their origin, ultimately, perhaps, gaining liberation from the Ego-delusion... or sumfink. ;)

and I figured you must've been fairly wacked-out on your journey in order to arrive at these destinations you speak of. But THIS...you've outdone yourself, sir:

...to move one's "center of being" from the stream of thoughts to the observer of that stream, at first by consciouss effort and then staying "there" constantly, to loosen up and get distance to that stream in order to slowly purify mind, getting rid of delusions and gaining freedom from mechanical thinking by observing them to their origin, ultimately, perhaps, gaining liberation from the Ego-delusion...
---

Quite.

The Great Ego-Punisher and I go way back.

:smoke:

and your name makes me swoon.

Here's to colors (and liquids) :toast:

It is named after the horticulturist that developed it.

Ironically, it is orange.

But it is surrounded by a sea of Siberian Squills which are violet.


:-)

I Googled it but couldn't find a picture of one. :(

I love taking pictures of flowers.

That's the one in my garden.

Great photo too. :toast:

Thanks for posting it. :hug:

Munching on the leaf. Since we never use pesticides in our garden, I have to pick the critters off the leaves twice a day every day when the Azalea is in season.

It is worth it, though.

He's kinda cute. I hope you're not gonna do a Yosemite Sam on him ;)

is insane.

so I'm going to tell you about my strange dream anyway. ;)

When I was in graduate school, I lived in a small flat inside an old house in London. One lazy weekend afternoon, I fell asleep and gradually worked my way from a captive dream to a lucid dream, and then to the state where the "out of body" experience is possible. You're probably familiar with this state: one is awake and asleep at the same time in the same place; the body is paralyzed; it's difficult to wake up. I have "experimented" with this state quite a bit, and this was one of the few times that I managed to "separate" my consciousness from my body.

If you've ever tried it, you know how difficult it is to achieve this "separation." It also takes a sustained act of will to "see" in this state. One can very easily lose control of the imagery and drift back into the lucid (or captive) dream. On this occasion, my "mission" was to "walk" outside and do an inventory of the cars in front of the house, wake up, and walk outside and check the actual cars against my inventory.

As I was "walking" down the main hallway of the house, I fixated on the light coming through the front door and lost control of the imagery. I found myself in a similar hallway facing a different door, and there was a new opening in the wall to my left. I turned and walked into the unfamiliar room - decorated entirely in antique furniture - and found an old woman sitting in a chair, watching me intently. As I walked toward her I asked her, "Where am I?" She didn't answer. "Who are you? What happened to my experiment?" Again, she didn't answer. She just sat there calmly, watching me. I felt frustrated and thought, "It's only a dream now. What can it hurt?" So I leaned over her, grabbed her by the shoulders and shook her gently. As I was shaking her, I heard a crash and a loud yell. That's when I woke up.

I bolted out of bed, and ran out of my flat into the main hallway of the house - where the sounds had come from. I found my landlord on the floor writhing in pain. His wife was walking down the stairs toward us. Then the doorbell rang.

"Violet, please get that." said Mrs. Landlord. So I walked to the front door and opened it. I was stunned to be standing face-to-face with an old woman that looked very much like the one in my dream. "Hello, I'm..." she introduced herself. "I used to live in this house when I was a little girl, and it would mean the world to me if I could come in and look around."

I invited her in and explained to Mrs. Landlord who she was, while Mr. Landlord explained to all of us how he fell. It turns out that he climbed on top of a precarious little table in order to change a light bulb; one of the legs gave way, and he came tumbling down.

One the strange things about the experience (that isn't readily apparent) is the spatial proximity between the old woman in the dream and the landlord on the little table.

Anyway, that's the strange and spooky dream. Take it for what it's worth. :hi:

Dreams fascinate and perplex me. I can make heads nor tails of them.

Yours is a beaut.

In a lucid dream, one comes closer to becoming the "watcher."

It's something that can be taught. At the very least it can be a thoroughly liberating experience.